Sivatia v. Fox

1

ATONIO SIVATIA, through his Guardian & Mother Nonnie L. Masaniai Pea, and NONNIE L. MASANIAI PEA, Plaintiff, v. AMMON FOX, JAMES WILLIAMS, NICK GREEN, and CHAD FAUBION, West Valley City Police Officers; DOE DEPUTIES 1-10; and WEST VALLEY CITY, by and through its Police Department, Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00761-DBB-JCB

United States District Court, D. Utah

July 25, 2024

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [48] DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

David Barlow, United States District Judge

Defendants Ammon Fox, James Williams, Nick Green, Chad Faubion, and West Valley City (collectively “Defendants”) move for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs Atonio Sivatia and Nonnie L. Masaniai Pea's (collectively Plaintiffs) state and federal constitutional claims.^[1]For the following reasons the court grants Defendants' motion in part and denies it in part.

BACKGROUND

At approximately midnight on December 6, 2020, the West Valley City Police Department (the “Department”) received multiple calls from an apartment complex located at 4000 South Redwood Road, West Valley City Utah.^[2] One caller reported that a man-Mr. Sivatia^[3]-had been pounding on the caller's apartment door and window while screaming “Kill me,” had broken his apartment window, and had proceeded through the apartment complex.^[4] Police dispatch put out a call for a “psychiatric” and described the first caller's report.^[5] Officers Fox and Faubion responded.^[6] During this time, another caller reported that a man who was likely having a “mental episode” was breaking windows and screaming, and was likely near the complex's pool.^[7] Dispatch communicated Mr Sivatia's location to the responding officers.^[8] Officer Fox arrived, informed dispatch that he could hear the suspect, and stated that because the suspect was intoxicated and belligerent, he was just going to keep an eye on him until a second unit could arrive.^[9] Officer Fox then informed dispatch that Mr. Sivatia was “going after a car that [has] an occupant.”^[10] Throughout this period, several callers reported Mr. Sivatia's behavior.^[11]

Officer Fox made contact with Mr. Sivatia, informed him that he was a police officer, and ordered him to get on the ground.^[12] Mr. Sivatia walked away from Officer Fox.^[13] Officer Fox shouted: “You can't keep attacking people.”^[14] Mr. Sivatia then began to run from the apartment complex toward Redwood Road, and Officer Fox slowly pursued him.^[15] Officer Fox radioed that Mr. Sivatia was not “moving too fast”; he then repeated his order to Mr. Sivatia to stop.^[16] The closer Mr. Sivatia got to Redwood Road, the more urgent Officer Fox's commands became.^[17] Mr. Sivatia ran into Redwood Road and narrowly avoided getting hit by southbound traffic.^[18] He appears to have shouted “Kill me” again right before he entered the roadway.^[19]Mr. Sivatia began running north, in the middle or leftmost lane of the southbound roadway; Officer Fox sprinted after Mr. Sivatia, again ordered Mr. Sivatia to “get on the ground now,” and then when Mr. Sivatia did not comply, he tased Mr. Sivatia.^[20]

Mr. Sivatia fell with his head pointed north, in the leftmost lane of the southbound roadway of Redwood Road.^[21] Officer Fox warned Mr. Sivatia not to move, and warned that if he did, Officer Fox would “hit him again.”^[22] Officer Fox stood several feet behind Mr. Sivatia, and shined his flashlight at oncoming traffic, though he also used the hand holding his flashlight to activate his radio at several points, and in doing so, turned the flashlight away from oncoming traffic.^[23] An oncoming car stopped in the lane of traffic that Mr. Sivatia and Officer Fox occupied with its hazard lights on, though other lanes of traffic continued to flow.^[24] Officer Fox informed dispatch that he had “traffic stopped.”^[25] He then radioed dispatch and observed that Mr. Sivatia had intentionally sought to be hit by a car.^[26] Officer Fox repeatedly warned Mr. Sivatia that he was not to move.^[27] Officer Williams arrived in his vehicle and parked in the turn lane approximately 30 feet south of where Mr. Sivatia lay.^[28] The car blocking traffic remained in place for roughly one minute and departed approximately as Officer Williams approached Mr. Sivatia from his vehicle.^[29] At roughly the same time that the car that had been blocking traffic left, Officer Fox was in the process of radioing dispatch for medical support, due to the blood on Mr. Sivatia.^[30] Officer Williams stood in the median lane, facing Mr. Sivatia.^[31] Roughly 15 seconds after the car that was blocking the lane departed, another car ran over Mr. Sivatia and clipped Officer Fox.^[32] As the car reached approximately 10 feet from Mr. Sivatia, Officer Fox yelled “Hey! No!” and after the car ran over Mr. Sivatia, Officer Fox screamed several expletives.^[33] Mr. Sivatia had been prone in Redwood Road for approximately 90 seconds in total.^[34] As a result of being run over, Mr. Sivatia suffered severe injuries.^[35]

Plaintiffs filed suit on December 28, 2021.^[36] Their Third Amended Complaint alleges seven claims: excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Officer Fox; violation of Mr. Sivatia's state constitutional rights against Officers Fox and Williams; willful misconduct in violation of Utah law against West Valley City; unlawful or deficient policies in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against West Valley City; failure to train in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against West Valley City; state-created danger against West Valley City; and declaratory and injunctive relief.^[37] Defendants now move for summary judgment on only the first, second, fourth, fifth, and seventh claims.^[38] This matter was fully briefed on March 21, 2024.^[39] Plaintiffs later filed an objection to new evidence Defendants submitted on reply.^[40] Because none of that evidence would affect its analysis, the court does not consider either the belated evidence or the objections.

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”^[41] “A fact is material if, under the governing law, it could have an effect on the outcome of the lawsuit. A dispute over a material fact is genuine if a rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party on the evidence presented.”^[42] When the moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of proof at trial, the moving party satisfies its initial burden by pointing out the lack of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.^[43] If the moving party carries its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial.^[44] Courts must “view the facts and draw reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable'” to the non-moving party.^[45]

DISCUSSION

I. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

“Every person who, under color of [state law], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured[.]”^[46] The Amended Complaint alleges three claims grounded in Section 1983: the first claim alleges excessive force under the Fourth Amendment against Officer Fox for his use of a taser^[47]; the fourth claim alleges that the Department failed to create adequate policies and procedures for safe tasing and detention^[48]; and the fifth claim alleges that the Department failed to train or supervise its officers in safe tasing and detention.^[49]

The court begins with Plaintiffs' claim that Officer Fox violated Mr. Sivatia's Fourth Amendment rights by tasing him.

A. Excessive Force

Defendants argue that Officer Fox is entitled to qualified immunity for tasing Mr. Sivatia.^[50] “To overcome a qualified immunity defense, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”^[51]

1. Violation of Constitutional Right

When “the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment[.]”^[52] The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]”^[53] “Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘“the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests”' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.”^[54] “[T]he ‘reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are ‘objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.”^[55] Factors courts should consider when weighing the parties' interests include “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”^[56] The second factor “is undoubtedly the ‘most important'” factor.^[57] However, “[t]he Graham factors are nonexclusive and not dispositive; the inquiry remains focused on the totality of the circumstances.”^[58] Finally, the “calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second...