Scott v. Palmer

210 F.Supp.3d 1303

James Steven SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Officer Kyle PALMER, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-01034-MHH

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northwestern Division.

Signed September 27, 2016

James Robert Engelthaler, Randy K. Thigpen, Thigpen Behel & Engelthaler & Scott Inc., Florence, AL, for Plaintiffs.

C. Gregory Burgess, Lauren A. Smith, Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C., Huntsville, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff James Scott alleges that defendant Sergeant Kyle Palmer violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Alabama law when Sergeant Palmer arrested him in a church parking lot. (Doc. 1, pp. 7–9). Plaintiff Carolyn Scott also asserts a claim against Sergeant Palmer under Alabama law. (Doc. 1, ¶ 6.7). Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sergeant Palmer has asked the Court to enter judgment in his favor on the Scotts' claims. (Doc. 41). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact that precludes summary judgment, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must cite "to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

When considering a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, Inc. , 789 F.3d 1188, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court presents the facts in this opinion in the light most favorable to Mr. and Mrs. Scott. See White , 789 F.3d at 1191 ; see also Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach , 707 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2013) ("[W]hen conflicts arise between the facts evidenced by the parties, [courts] must credit the nonmoving party's version.").

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The incident that gave rise to the Scotts' claims took place as Mr. and Mrs. Scott were leaving a service at their church. (Doc. 38-1, pp. 68, 124).¹ Sergeant Palmer visited the church to investigate a call concerning a missing child. The mother of the child had called the Red Bay Police Department (RBPD) earlier in the day to report her 7-year-old daughter missing, and Sergeant Palmer was one of the law enforcement officers assigned to the case. (Doc. 42, p. 2; Doc. 38-26, ¶ 5).

Soon after the RBPD received the call about the missing child, officers went to the child's home to investigate the call. (Doc. 42, p. 2–4; Doc. 38-16, ¶¶ 3–4). The child's father told one of the officers that his daughter may have gone to Hurricane Creek Missionary Baptist Church with neighbors. (Doc. 42, p. 4; Doc. 38-16, ¶¶ 5–6). Hurricane Creek Missionary Baptist Church sits approximately three miles outside of the Red Bay city limits and a mile and a half outside of the jurisdiction of the RBPD, but both the church and the City of Red Bay are located in Franklin County. (Doc. 42, p. 4; Doc. 38-4, pp. 38–39). Because no Franklin County sheriff's deputy was immediately available to visit the church, RBPD Chief Janna Jackson directed defendant Sergeant Kyle Palmer to go there to look for the missing child. (Doc. 42, p. 5; Doc. 38-16, ¶ 6).

When Sergeant Palmer arrived at the church, a service had just ended. (Doc. 42, p. 6; Doc. 38-3, p. 34). Congregation members were either exiting the church or lingering nearby in conversation. (Doc. 42, p. 6; Doc. 38-3, p. 34). Sergeant Palmer approached the missing girl's neighbor, who identified the girl and confirmed that the child had indeed accompanied her and her husband to that evening's service. (Doc. 38-1, pp. 71–72; Doc. 38-5, p. 26; Doc. 42, p. 7). Having located the child, Sergeant Palmer returned to his patrol vehicle to radio the good news. (Doc. 42, p. 8; Doc. 38-3, p. 41). The child's neighbors joined him a few minutes later. (Doc. 42, p. 8; Doc. 38-3, pp. 41–42, 47). Standing near his vehicle, Sergeant Palmer and the neighbors made arrangements to return the child to her family. (Doc. 42, p. 10; Doc. 38-3, pp. 48–49). According to one of the neighbors who gave a statement to the investigating sheriff following these events, Sergeant Palmer told her that "everything was ok." (Doc. 38-17, p. 11).

Meanwhile, Mr. Scott was walking from the church's fellowship hall to his vehicle to stow some of his wife's belongings. (Doc. 42, p. 11; Doc. 38-2, p. 47). When he was done, Mr. Scott approached a friend, who told Mr. Scott that Sergeant Palmer was present at the church. (Doc. 42, p. 11; 38-2, pp. 47–48). As a church deacon, Mr. Scott felt it was his duty to determine why Sergeant Palmer was there. (Doc. 42, p. 12; Doc. 38-1, p. 82).

Mr. Scott walked toward Sergeant Palmer and the child's neighbors, stopped approximately three feet from Sergeant Palmer, and asked, "[w]hat's going on?"² (Doc. 38-2, pp. 72–73). Sergeant Palmer stated that he had things under control and the best thing for Mr. Scott to do was "[g]et back up yonder and shut up." (Doc. 38-2, p. 73). Mr. Scott asked, "[a]re you not a little out of your jurisdiction?" (Doc. 38-2, p. 74). Sergeant Palmer replied, "I go anywhere I want to go." (Doc. 38-2, p. 74). Mr. Scott then remarked, "[y]eah, but this is Franklin County. We got a county sheriff that, you know, works this part of the county." (Doc. 38-2, pp. 74–75).

The situation escalated when Sergeant Palmer stepped toward Mr. Scott and shoved him with two hands, causing Mr. Scott to move backwards. (Doc. 38-2, p. 75). Mr. Scott stepped back toward Sergeant Palmer and repeated, "[y]eah, but you're—this is Franklin County, and we got county law down here." (Doc. 38-2, pp. 75–76). Sergeant Palmer responded by telling Mr. Scott that he was under arrest. (Doc. 38-2, pp. 76). Sergeant Palmer placed one of Mr. Scott's arms in handcuffs. (Doc. 38-2, pp. 76; see also Doc. 38-1, p. 91). Mr. Scott asked Sergeant Palmer to loosen the cuff because it was too tight. (Doc. 38-2, pp. 83–85). Sergeant Palmer responded by kicking Mr. Scott's legs out from under him and pinning Mr. Scott face-down on the ground. (Doc. 38-2, pp. 83–85).

While on the ground, Sergeant Palmer repeatedly struck Mr. Scott in the back with his knees and pushed Mr. Scott's head down while he attempted to cuff Mr. Scott's free arm. (Doc. 38-2, p. 86; Doc. 38-11, p. 76; Doc. 38-12, p. 41–42). Mrs. Scott testified that Sergeant Palmer was sitting on him with his knee in Mr. Scott's back and a hand on Mr. Scott's head, "pressing his face in the dirt." (Doc. 38-1, pp. 91, 98).³ Sergeant Palmer contends that Mr. Scott refused to be handcuffed, but Mr. Scott maintains that he was unable to cooperate because his arm was pinned beneath him. (Doc. 38-3, p. 67; Doc. 38-2, p. 90). Mrs. Scott confirmed that Mr. Scott's left arm was "buried up underneath" him. (Doc. 38-1, p. 92). She explained that Mr. Scott "was laying on his arm, and then Sergeant Palmer was on top of him." (Doc. 38-1, p. 92). She heard her husband say to Sergeant Palmer, "I'm not resisting. I just can't breathe." (Doc. 38-1, p. 91).⁴

During the struggle, which was witnessed by approximately twenty members of the congregation, Sergeant Palmer pulled his gun and pointed it toward the congregants who had gathered, and Sergeant Palmer threatened to use his Taser on both Mr. and Mrs. Scott. (Doc. 38-1, pp. 93, 96, 102, 108; Doc. 38-2, p. 126; Doc. 38-17, pp. 8-11). Mrs. Scott testified that Sergeant Palmer "kept saying, ‘I'm going to tase you. I'm going to tase you.’ " (Doc. 38-1, p. 93). The record indicates that none of the congregants had a weapon. (Doc. 38-1, p. 124). According to Mrs. Scott, she was trying to make Sergeant Palmer aware of Mr. Scott's health conditions. Mrs. Scott stated:

I was telling Sergeant Palmer about Steve's health condition. I was explaining that he had COPD. He had emphysema. He had had back surgery. He had also had a stomach surgery back just a few months prior to that. And I was trying to get him off of him.

(Doc. 38-1, p. 95; see also Doc. 38-1, p. 101–02). After a few minutes on the ground, Sergeant Palmer successfully handcuffed Mr. Scott and allowed him to stand. (Doc. 38-2, p. 115; Doc. 38-11, p. 76).

Mr. Scott was helped to his feet by a few spectators, including Franklin County Sheriff's Deputy Clint Holcombe, who had arrived while Mr. Scott and Sergeant Palmer were on the ground. (Doc. 38-1, p. 105; Doc. 38-2, p. 109; Doc. 38-3, p. 77). Deputy Holcombe removed the cuff from Mr. Scott's right arm. (Doc. 38-2, p. 109). Someone from the congregation retrieved a chair from the church and brought it outside so that Mr. Scott could sit down. (Doc. 38-2, p. 110). Mrs. Scott testified that her husband's face was bleeding and his right wrist was "bleeding profusely" from the handcuff. (Doc. 38-1, p. 98).⁵ He had a knot on his right wrist and a knot on his elbow. (Doc. 38-1, p. 111). Shortly thereafter, an ambulance arrived and took Mr. Scott to the hospital. (Doc. 38-2, p. 113; Doc. 38-1, p. 112; Doc. 42, p. 21).

The next day, Mr. Scott's regular physician observed abrasions on Mr. Scott's arms indicative of trauma, bruising on Mr. Scott's right rib cage, and tenderness in Mr. Scott's chest wall. (38-18, pp. 15–16). A couple of weeks later, the bruising on Mr. Scott's right side was still present. (Doc. 38-18, p. 17). Mr....