Smith v. Stewart

NATHANIEL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JASON STEWART et al., Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-9085

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

March 10, 2020

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In his governing first amended complaint [41], pro se Plaintiff Nathaniel Smith asserts a Section 1983 claim against the City of Mendota, Illinois, Sergeant Jason Stewart, Officer Paul Peterson, and Police Chief Tom Smith for alleged use of excessive force during his arrest on December 12, 2017. Currently before the Court are Defendants' motion for summary judgment [55], Defendants' motion for sanctions [65], and Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendants' motion for summary judgment [71]. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [55] is granted and Plaintiff's motion to dismiss [71] is denied. In view of the disposition in favor of Defendants on the merits, Defendants' motion for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's harassing and vulgar communications with defense counsel [65] is denied as moot. However, given the egregious and highly inappropriate nature of those communications, the Court will refer Plaintiff to the Executive Committee of the Northern District of Illinois for a determination of whether to impose filing restrictions or other sanctions and/or discipline on Plaintiff. Because this order resolves all of the remaining claims in the case, a final judgment will be entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff and this civil case will be terminated.

I. Summary Judgment

A. Background

The following facts are taken from Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statement [57], which is properly supported by citations to the record in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. The record includes sworn declarations from Officer Peterson, Sergeant Smith, and Chief Smith; the Mendota Police Department's case report from December 12, 2017; video taken from Officer Peterson's body camera and from the in-house camera in the Mendota Police Department's report room on December 12, 2017; Plaintiff's deposition transcript; Plaintiff's medical records; and a transcript of Plaintiff's allegedly harassing text messages.¹

Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 statement or supported his arguments with affidavits or other materials, as required by the local rules. In particular, Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires a party opposing summary judgment to file a response to the movant's 56.1 statement with "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." Plaintiff also received notice that he "must submit evidence, such as witness statements or documents, countering the facts asserted by the defendant and raising material issues of fact for trial" and that "[a]ny witness statements must be in the form of affidavits." [69] at 1. Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with these rules, the Court would be well within its discretion to deem all of Defendants' factual statements admitted. See Wilson v. Kautex, Inc., 371 Fed. Appx. 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining that it is "well within the district court's discretion" to strictly enforce Local Rule 56.1, even where the plaintiff "is a pro se litigant"); Smith v. State Farm Ins. Co., 347 Fed. Appx. 228, 230 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming grantof summary judgment against pro se plaintiff who failed to rebut defendant insurer's factual assertions with admissible evidence after being apprised of the consequences of failing to do so).

Nonetheless, out of an abundance and taking into account Plaintiff's pro se status and various medical issues,² the Court has also carefully reviewed and considered the full transcript of Plaintiff's deposition, see [57-7], as well as the unsworn factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint [41] and various responses to summary judgment, see [61], [71], [74], [75], [86], [87]. However, to the extent that Plaintiff's version of events is "blatantly contradicted" by the video evidence submitted by Defendants, "so that no reasonable jury could believe it," the Supreme Court has instructed that the district could "should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling" on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); see also Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 944 (7th Cir. 2018) ("[W]hen video footage clearly contradicts the nonmovant's claims, we may consider that video footage without favoring the nonmovant. This is because on summary judgment we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant only if there is a genuine dispute about those facts. When video footage firmly settles a factual issue, there is no genuine dispute about it, and we will not indulge stories clearly contradicted by the footage."). Instead, the district court is to view the facts in the light depicted by the videotapes that captured the events underlying Plaintiff's excessive force claim. Scott, 550 U.S. at 381 (in considering motion for summary judgment that raised factual issue of whether motorist fleeing law enforcement officials was driving in a way that endangeredhuman life at the time police officer rammed motorist's car from behind to put end to chase, courts could not rely upon motorist's version of events, which was so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him, and instead had to view facts in the light depicted by videotape that captured events underlying motorist's excessive force claim); see also Johnson v. Moeller, 269 Fed. Appx. 593, 596 (7th Cir. 2008) (police officers did not use excessive force against pretrial detainee, despite detainee's contention that officer struck him six to eight times in head, where security tape showed that after detainee hit one officer, other officer struck him only once in back with metal restraints, drove him to floor, and handcuffed him, medical evaluation that was conducted same day as altercation contradicted detainee's account of severe beating, and there was no evidence that tape had been edited).³

At the time relevant to the complaint, Plaintiff Nathaniel Smith ("Plaintiff") was a resident of Mendota, Illinois. Defendant Paul Peterson ("Officer Peterson") is a police officer with the Mendota Police Department ("Department"). Defendant Jason Stewart ("Sergeant Stewart") is a police sergeant with the Department and Officer Peterson's supervisor. Defendant Thomas Smith ("Chief Smith") was the Police Chief at the time relevant to the complaint, but has since retired.

On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff was at the Mendota Police Station ("Station"). Officer Peterson and Sergeant Stewart were on duty at the Station. According to his declaration, Chief Smith was not at the Station; Plaintiff also testified that he did not recall seeing Chief Smith at the Station. Around 3:00 p.m., Plaintiff met with Officer Peterson concerning harassing text messages that Plaintiff had allegedly sent to a woman (the "complainant"). Officer Peterson took Plaintiffinto the report room for questioning. Officer Peterson read Plaintiff his Miranda rights and then questioned Plaintiff about his alleged threatening text messages and social media post directed at the complainant and her brother. At his deposition, Plaintiff would neither admit nor deny sending the messages. See [57-7] at 12, Tr. p. 42:6-10. At Plaintiff's prompting, Plaintiff and Officer Peterson also discussed other, unrelated events, including a murder that Plaintiff claimed to believe occurred 14 years earlier. Plaintiff was not handcuffed or searched for this entire period, which lasted for about 1 hour and 39 minutes and is captured on Officer Peterson's body camera and the in-house camera in the report room.

At the end of the interview, Officer Peterson left the room to speak to Sergeant Stewart and the complainant. The complainant decided that she wanted to press charges against Plaintiff. Officer Peterson and Sergeant Stewart re-entered the report room together. They explained to Plaintiff that he was being charged with harassment. Officer Peterson asked Plaintiff to stand and take off his jacket and two sweatshirts so that he could be searched. It is part of the Department's training and protocol to search a person when he is placed under arrest. This is done for the safety of the arrestee, the arresting officer, and other persons in the area. The search includes the groin and crotch area because, as officers are taught in training, weapons and contraband can be hidden in those areas.

Plaintiff turned and faced the wall and Officer Peterson conducted the frisk by patting down Plaintiff's torso, legs, and groin area and emptying Plaintiff's pants pockets. See [57-6], Ex. F, video from in-house camera, approx. 4:40 to 4:42 p.m. The video shows that Plaintiff did not verbalize any objection to or concerns about how he was positioned against the wall; the pat-down lasted less than a minute; neither Officer Peterson nor Plaintiff made any sudden movements; and Plaintiff gave no verbal indication that he was in pain at any point during the frisk. During thepat-down, Plaintiff offered, "if you want me to get naked I will"; Officer Peterson declined the offer. Id. Officer Peterson conducted the frisk under the watch of his supervisor, Sergeant Stewart. Officer Peterson and Sergeant Stewart were aware that the in-house camera would capture the frisk. The video from the in-house camera obviously contradicts Plaintiff's deposition testimony that Officer Peterson "shook his pants hard and furiously," [57-7] at 10, Tr. p. 34:11-22, which is what Plaintiff claims injured his testicles, back, and knees, see id. at Tr. pp. 34-35. The video does not record any shaking of Plaintiff's pants, much less shaking that could be characterized as "hard" or "furious."

Immediately after he was frisked, Plaintiff sat down on the...