Pryor v. Corrigan

NATHANIEL PRYOR, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CORRIGAN, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-1968

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

March 30, 2021

Hon. Steven C. Seeger

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Early one evening in March 2015, Plaintiff Nathaniel Pryor was on his way to the gym with two friends. They rode in a Chevy conversion van, and they planned to get Pryor's gym bag at his house. But they never got a workout. Instead of going to the gym, Pryor ended up at the police station.

An Aurora police officer pulled them over for failure to signal within 100 feet of a stop sign. After seeing the emergency lights on the police car, the van pulled into a nearby driveway and came to a stop. The driver stayed put. But the other two men - including Pryor - got out of the vehicle.

The man in the backseat took off at a full-speed run, prompting one of the officers to chase him on foot. Pryor hopped out of the front passenger seat and began a half-hearted jog down the side of the van, scrambling down the short driveway. A few seconds later, Defendant Michael Corrigan, an officer with the Aurora Police Department, arrived in a second squad car and spotted Pryor making his way toward the street.

Officer Corrigan ran out of his squad car toward Pryor, shouting "Get on the ground!" Pryor stopped moving, stood in front of the first police car, faced the officer, and put his hands up.

Seconds later, Officer Corrigan tackled Pryor to the ground. The officer straddled Pryor as he lay on the pavement. In the next minute, the officer struck Pryor, began to handcuff him, struck him again, and then conducted a search. The officer searched Pryor again after helping him off the ground. Later, another officer, Damien Cantona, allegedly searched him a third time in the back of a transport van.

The officers took Pryor to the police station and charged him with resisting or obstructing a police officer in violation of Illinois law. The state later dropped the charge nolle prosequi.

The criminal case was over, but this civil case was just getting started. Pryor ultimately filed suit against Officer Corrigan, Officer Cantona, and a collection of other officers, plus the city of Aurora. He brought six claims: (1) false arrest; (2) excessive force; (3) illegal search; (4) battery; (5) malicious prosecution; and (6) indemnification.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The Court grants in part, and denies in part, Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Background

The Stakeout

The incident that culminated in Pryor's arrest didn't start with the van's failure to signal within 100 feet of a stop sign. It started earlier that day, with a tip from an informant. Aurora police received a tip that someone named Raymond Johnson would be "cooking crack cocaine ata home on Kane Street," and that Johnson "would be in a conversion van."¹ See Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 3-4 (Dckt. No. 84).

Five police officers joined the stakeout of the house on Kane Street, looking for a conversion van. Two officers, Officer Cantona (the officer who received the tip) and Officer David Tellner (his partner) sat down the block in their vehicle and surveilled the home from a distance. Id. at ¶ 3. Two other officers, Michael Corrigan and Gregory Christoffel, were cruising the neighborhood. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6. The final officer - Nathaniel Isaak - was parked further down Kane Street. See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 5 (Dckt. No. 108). Officer Isaak testified that he was directed to stop the van if there was probable cause to do so. See Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 5 (Dckt. No. 84)

A purple and white Chevy conversion van later appeared in the neighborhood. The van contained three men. Terry Mading drove. Plaintiff Nathaniel Pryor sat in the front passenger seat. Raymond Johnson - the man named in the tip - sat in the back seat. See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 16-17 (Dckt. No. 124). It was early evening. Id. at ¶ 14.

It is undisputed that they were "go[ing] to the gym for a workout." Id. (admitting that "plaintiff was picked up by Terry Mading to go to the gym for a workout"). It is also undisputed that they were first headed to Pryor's home on Fenton Street so that he could grab his gym bag. Id. at ¶ 15 (admitting that the van was "on the way to plaintiff's home . . . so that plaintiff could retrieve his gym bag").

The Traffic Stop

Officer Isaak was the first to spot the van. He observed the van approach the intersection of Kane and Ohio, stop at a stop sign, signal, and then turn right. See Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 6 (Dckt. No. 84).

Officer Isaak testified that the van failed to signal 100 feet before turning, a violation of Illinois law. Id. In response, Pryor "cannot admit or deny whether the van put on its signal light more or less than 100 feet before the intersection of Kane and Ohio Streets." See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 6 (Dckt. No. 108). On this question, there is evidence on only one side of the ledger. For purposes of summary judgment, it is undisputed that the van failed to signal 100 feet from the stop sign. So there is no issue about whether the traffic stop itself complied with the Fourth Amendment.²

Officer Isaak decided to stop the van, so he began to follow it. See Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 6 (Dckt. No. 84). The cruiser driven by Officer Gregory Christoffel (with Officer Corrigan as a passenger) followed Officer Isaak's squad car, trailing by a few blocks. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9.

The Footage

The traffic stop - and the ensuing melee - was caught on video, from the dashcam of both police cars (i.e., the one driven by Officer Isaak, and the one driven by Officer Christoffel with Officer Corrigan as a passenger). Both cameras captured the traffic stop, at different distances. Each camera captured part of what happened next. But neither video captured theentire interaction. See Corrigan Squad Car Video, Defs.' Ex. 17 (Dckt. No. 87-1); Isaak Squad Car Video, Defs.' Ex. 18 (Dckt. No. 88-1).

One squad car was behind the other, so they captured different views. Pryor was in the frame of one of the cameras some of the time, and was in the frame of the other camera at other times. Specifically, Officer Corrigan's dashcam showed Pryor jog down the driveway. Officer Isaak's dashcam caught the tackle. Officer Corrigan's camera showed what happened when Pryor hit the ground.

In their filings, the parties offer different characterizations of what took place after the van pulled over. But the videos tell their own story. "When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

The Court can see - and did see - what happened with its own eyes. Some parts of the video are susceptible to different interpretations (creating an issue of fact), but other parts are not. The Court does not have to accept a gloss on the evidence if the "videotape tells quite a different story." Id. at 378-79 (holding that a videotape showed that there was no genuine issue of material fact, even though the parties characterized the facts differently); see id. at 380-81 ("Respondent's version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape."); Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2016) ("When the evidence includes a videotape of the relevant events, the Court should not adopt the nonmoving party's version of the events when that version is blatantly contradicted by the videotape.") (relying primarily on video from dashboard camera ofpolice vehicle); Holm v. Vill. of Coal City, 345 F. App'x. 187, 190 (7th Cir. 2009) (considering record evidence rather than party's characterization of evidence). There is no suggestion that the recordings are unreliable or inauthentic.

The Approach

The dashcam from Officer Isaak's squad car shows him following the van. He trailed the van for about 20 seconds, roughly two blocks, before the van pulled over. See Isaak Squad Car Video, Defs.' Ex. 18, at 0:20-40 (Dckt. No. 88-1). It is not obvious when, exactly, Officer Isaak turned on his emergency lights. But they appear to reflect off of a street sign during the last 10 seconds (roughly the last block). Id. at 0:30-32. The van stopped relatively soon. The driver hit the brakes, turned his signal on, and pulled into a driveway within a few seconds, going at a modest rate of speed. Id. at 0:30-40.

Officer Isaak parked his squad car on the street in front of the house. Id. at 0:45. The dashcam on Isaak's car still pointed forward (down the street), so the van, which was parking in the driveway to the right, was no longer in the frame.

As soon as the van parked, Raymond Johnson, the man in the back seat, got out of the car and took off running. See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Facts, at ¶ 22 (Dckt. No. 124). At that point, Officer Isaak called into his radio in an excited voice, "I got - I got a male bailing out of the house! 1123 Fenton." See Isaak Squad Car Video, Defs.' Ex. 18, at 0:45-49 (Dckt. No. 88-1). Defendants suggest that Isaak misspoke, and that he intended to say that a man, Johnson, was bailing out of the "car." See Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 21 (Dckt. No. 108).

In any case, after radioing in, Officer Isaak immediately dashed out of the squad car and ran after Johnson (who was eventually apprehended). The video shows Officer Isaak streakingin front of the hood, running toward the van, yelling (presumably at Johnson): ...