Ryan v. City of Detroit

DEBORAH RYAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-10900

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 25, 2015

HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE DETROIT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 111)

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a civil rights case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Deborah Ryan, in her individual capacity and as the representative of the estate of her daughter, Patricia "Katie" Williams, filed suit alleging that Defendants City of Detroit, Detroit police officers Dwane Blackmon and Barbara Kozloff, City of Canton, and Canton police officers Adam Falk and Mark Schultz failed to respond properly to a report made to the Canton Police Department ("CPD") of domestic violence committed by Ed Williams upon his wife, Katie Williams. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' failure enabled Ed to murder Katie, both of whom were Detroit police officers. In her section 1983 claims alleging substantive due-process violations by Detroit police officers Blackmon and Kozloff, and the City of Detroit (collectively, for purposes of this opinion, the "Detroit Defendants"), Plaintiff argues that Defendants increased the risk of harm to Katie by taking actions that kept Ed at liberty and ultimately enabled him to kill her.

The Detroit Defendants have moved for summary judgment (Dkt. 111). As explained fully below, the Court grants the motion because there is no genuine issue of material fact thatKozloff and Blackmon did not violate Katie's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, therefore, they are shielded by qualified immunity. Because there was no constitutional violation by the individual officers, the City of Detroit cannot be held liable and is entitled to summary judgment in its favor.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court has already addressed the facts of this case, but with a focus on the City of Canton, Adam Falk, and Mark Schultz (collectively, the "Canton Defendants"). See Ryan v. City of Detroit, 977 F. Supp. 2d 738 (E.D. Mich. 2013). The following facts reiterate the events that occurred between September 19, 2009 and September 22, 2009 relating to Ed and Katie, but with a focus on then-Lieutenant Dwane Blackmon, Sergeant Barabara Kozloff, and the City of Detroit.

A. Facts Pertaining to the Detroit Defendants

Ed Williams, a Detroit Police Department ("DPD") homicide detective, was married to Katie Williams, a DPD academy instructor. By 2009, the couple had been married for approximately three years and owned a home on Wall Street in Canton, Michigan. 9/20/09 Falk Report at 1 (Dkt. 138-3). Ed and Katie had marital difficulties, however, and, by September 2009, they had not been living together for two months. Id.

At about 9:45 p.m. on the evening of Saturday, September 19, 2009, Ed came to the Wall Street home and found Katie talking to her boyfriend, Clifford Lee, on the phone. Video Tr. at 6-7 (Dkt. 138-5). An argument ensued, which culminated in Ed pushing Katie to the ground; Katie sustained a cut on her right cheek. Id. Shortly after midnight, Katie and Lee arrived at the CPD headquarters and requested a police escort to accompany Katie back home. Falk Report at 1.

Officer Adam Falk was on duty at the CPD headquarters and interviewed Katie. Falk Dep. at 10. Katie described the domestic-violence episode with her husband, but refused to provide her name or Ed's name. Id. at 14-17. Katie told Falk that she and her husband were both Detroit police officers and that she did not want Ed to lose his job. Video Tr. at 5, 8.

Falk informed Katie that all he could do was write a report and let the prosecutor make the determination whether Ed would be charged. Id. at 6. Falk said that he would write a report, but would not seek the arrest of Ed based on the information Katie gave him. Id.at 13. Katie then left the CPD headquarters with Lee. Falk Dep. at 17. Just before she left the police headquarters, Falk asked Katie, "Do you still want anybody to go over to the house?" Katie responded, "No." Video Tr. at 18.

Katie returned to the Wall Street home the morning of September 20, accompanied by Plaintiff, her mother. Deborah Ryan Dep. at 60-65 (Dkt. 138-6). Katie entered the home unaware that Ed was there. Id. According to Plaintiff, the women had an altercation with Ed, which involved yelling and a scuffle. Id. During this incident, Ed was holding a handgun and was intoxicated. Id. Plaintiff called the Canton police for help, but Ed had fled by the time the police arrived. Id. at 72. The police also found that Ed had left a note, which one of the responding officers, Lieutenant Mark Schultz, considered to be a "suicide note."¹ Mark Schultz Dep. at 111 (111-3). Shortly after Ed fled, Schultz issued a notice through the Law Enforcement Information Network ("LEIN") regarding Ed.² LEIN Worksheet (Dkt. 138-8).

After returning to CPD that morning, Schultz contacted DPD to notify it of the incident between two of its officers. Schultz Dep. at 50-53, 57. The transcript of Schultz's initial call to Sergeant Martel of DPD reveals that Schultz wanted DPD apprised of the situation so that it would "get a hold of" Ed. Call Tr. at 5 (Dkt. 138-12). Schultz explained to Martel that he did not think the domestic-violence incident would get a full investigation because (i) CPD did not have enough information, (ii) initially, Katie did not provide her name, and (iii) Falk had only written a civil report. Id. at 11. Schultz also told Martel that he was concerned that there may be a "workplace issue," because Schultz did not know whether Ed knew the identity of Katie's boyfriend, Lee, who was also a DPD officer. Id. at 12-14.

In deposition, Schultz testified that if DPD wanted to do an internal investigation, CPD would have provided DPD with information. Id. at 59. Schultz also stated that he had hoped that DPD could get a hold of Ed to assess his "mental state." Id.

A few minutes after speaking with Schultz, Martel called his own supervisor, Dwane Blackmon, and reported the events that had occurred between Ed and Katie. Blackmon Dep. at 20-29 (Dkt. 139-1); Call Tr. at 10. Martel then called Schultz back and told him that he had been instructed by DPD's Internal Affairs ("IA") division to have all the information that CPD wanted to submit sent to IA and not Homicide, his and Ed's division. Call Tr. at 10-15. However, the record does not disclose when Martel received the instruction from IA that it would handle the investigation, nor does it disclose who specifically from IA gave the instruction.

CPD Officer Michael Steckel, an officer who assisted Schultz on September 20, 2009, also testified about CPD contacting DPD because he also called Martel. Steckel considered Ed's conduct to be a "mental situation" because of the drinking, the gun, and the note. Steckel Dep. at 24 (Dkt. 139-12). Steckel later explained to Martel that Ed could either come to CPD or his"supervisor's office at [DPD] and we would make our decision based on what they had to say about if it was good enough to remove him from LEIN." Id.

Throughout the day, Schultz had called Ed in the hopes of speaking with him, to no avail. Schultz Dep. at 59. Then, at a little after 6:00 p.m. that Sunday, while Steckel was on the phone with Martel, Schultz had a brief phone conversation with Ed. Call Tr. at 17; Schultz Dep. at 82, 86. Schultz told Ed that he knew Ed had left the note. Ed responded that the note did not mean anything. Schultz Dep. at 83. Schultz also told Ed that he had entered the LEIN notice, listing him as a "missing person endangered." Id. Schultz said that he would not remove the notice until Ed came to see Schultz or went to his supervisor at DPD. Id. Ed said that he was closer to Detroit, so Schultz told Ed to have his supervisor call him when he got to DPD. Id.

At some point prior to Ed's arrival at DPD that Sunday evening, Martel called his colleague Kozloff, and told her that Ed had been involved in an incident, perhaps domestic, at his house in Canton, and that CPD had entered Ed into LEIN as an "endangered missing." Kozloff Dep. at 38-40 (Dkt. 138-16). Kozloff did not remember whether her division, Homicide, was supposed to stay out of the matter because IA would handle it, but she did know CPD documents were to be faxed to IA. Id. at 50-52.

Kozloff testified that, prior to meeting Ed, she had a phone call with Schultz. Kozloff Dep. at 45-46. Kozloff also testified that, from her conversation with Schultz, there was no probable cause to arrest Ed. Id. Schultz had apprised Kozloff of the basic facts of the morning incident in Canton. Schultz Dep. at 77-78.

At some point on that Sunday, Blackmon spoke with Kozloff. According to Kozloff, Blackmon encouraged her to see Ed, see how he was doing, see if he was "okay and offer him personal affairs." 1/28/10 Kozloff Statement at 6-7 (Dkt. 138-15). While Kozloff was talking toBlackmon, Ed called Kozloff on her cell phone. Kozloff Dep. at 37. Kozloff told Ed that she needed to see him because of the incident in Canton, but Ed told Kozloff to lie and state that she had seen him. Id. at 66. Kozloff testified that she refused to lie for Ed. Id. at 67. Ed told Kozloff that he was "too far away" to come to DPD. Id. at 68. In fact, however, Ed was nearby and ultimately agreed to come in. Id. at 69. Kozloff then notified Blackmon of her telephone conversation with Ed, and Blackmon urged Kozloff to see if Ed was "O.K." DPD Report at 19.

Ed met with Kozloff on Sunday evening, September 20. Kozloff Dep. at 75. Ed told Kozloff of his marital strife, relating the argument with Katie that morning at the Wall Street home. Id. at 78. Kozloff also testified that Ed stated that when he heard police sirens, he left the home. Id. at 79. Kozloff did not inquire further on this point because she claims that she had not been apprised of any other facts by Blackmon, Martel, or Schultz. Id. at 41, 45, 49, 61-62. Kozloff asked...