The Estate of Harvey v. Minter

1

THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ZACKARY HARVEY; SHIRLEY FRANCIS, as Mother of William Zackary Harvey; and MICHAEL HARVEY, as surviving son of William Zackary Harvey, Plaintiffs, v. ROY W. MINTER, former Chief of Police for the City of Savannah, Georgia, in his individual capacity; the CITY OF SAVANNAH, GEORGIA, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Georgia; SILVER LEUSCHNER, in his individual capacity; MICHAEL KERR, in his individual capacity; and MATTHEW WHITE, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-00064

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

June 13, 2024

ORDER

R STAN BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE

This case arises from the April 2, 2021, suicide of William Zackary Harvey that occurred while in custody of the Savannah Police Department (“SPD”). (Doc. 67.) Harvey's mother, Shirley Francis, Harvey's son Michael Harvey, and Harvey's estate sued the City of Savannah (“City”) and various SPD officers involved in Harvey's detention alleging various violations of federal and state law. (Id.) Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement and Partial Motion to Dismiss, in which Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) constitutes an improper “shotgun pleading” and that some of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants should be dismissed based on qualified immunity. (Docs.70, 70-1.)

For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS in Part and DENIES in Part Defendants' Motion and DIRECTS Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint following the parameters set forth in the Conclusion of this Order.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts are set forth in the SAC. (Doc. 67.) On April 2, 2021, four SPD officers, Matthew White, Rodheem Greene, Timothy Valmont, and Silver Leuschner, were dispatched to a convenience store located at 2016 Skidaway Road, Savannah, Georgia, in connection with a reported altercation. (Id. at p. 5.) There, the Officers arrested Harvey, and Greene escorted Harvey to the SPD Headquarters. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Harvey was taken to an interview room for questioning. (Id. at p. 6.) Leuschner activated her body-worn camera (“bodycam”) but did not turn on the camera in the interview room. (Id.) Leuschner explained that she did not turn on the camera in the interview room because she had her bodycam activated. (Id.)

Harvey was handcuffed during the interview, and Leuschner described him as mumbling and emotional. (Id. at p. 7.) Harvey described himself as a paranoid schizophrenic with anxiety who was “really depressed.” (Id.) Harvey also advised Leuschner that he takes Zoloft for his depression. (Id.) Leuschner responded, “Okay, but do any of those medical conditions keep you from talking to me[?]” (Id. at pp. 14-15.) During the interview, Harvey was crying. (Id. at p. 7.) He stated that he would rather die than go to jail and that the police would have to kill him before he would go back to jail. (Id.) Harvey also stated, “I'm not a violent person but I'll stand on myself and kill myself.”^[1] (Id.) Leuschner observed Harvey bang his head on the table. (Id. at p. 8.)

Leuschner then left the interview room to go speak with her superior, Sergeant Michael Kerr, but advised Harvey she would return. (Id. at p. 9.) When she left the room, she turned off her bodycam. (Id.) When she returned, Leuschner watched Greene handcuff Harvey's left hand to a wall anchor, leaving the other hand unshackled to sign a waiver of rights form. (Id.) Leuschner then exited the interview room for a second time and told Greene and White-who were outside the room-to watch Harvey. (Id. at pp. 9-10.) Specifically, Leuschner said, “If you hear something, check on him.” (Id. at p. 10.) Leuschner assumed they would open the door to maintain direct observation of Harvey, later noting that, “they're officers just like me, they're not stupid.” (Id. at p. 71.) Kerr knew that Leuschner left SPD headquarters, but he did not open the interview room door or place Greene or White in the room with Harvey. (Id. at p. 84.) About twenty to forty minutes after Leuschner left, White and Greene went in to check on Harvey because he had been so quiet. (Id. at p. 10.) When they opened the door to the interview room, they saw Harvey tipped over, unconscious, with a shoestring tied around his neck. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) Harvey's cause of death was suicide by hanging. (Id. at p. 13.) The toxicology report found that Harvey's blood tested positive for alcohol, Zoloft, and cocaine. (Id. at pp. 13-14.)

SDP Chief Roy Minter stated in a press conference that the officers involved “made some poor decisions” and “didn't follow [SPD] policy and procedure.” (Id. at p. 16.) Minter added that in his thirty-five years in law enforcement, he had not experienced an in-custody death where someone was left unmonitored in an interview room. (Id. at p. 17.) Following an investigation, Leuschner was terminated by a disciplinary review board for violating the following SPD policies: “a) criminal investigation policy; b) employee responsibility; c) oath of office ethics and conduct; and d) video/audio recording equipment.” (Id. at p. 18.) Kerr was also terminated by the disciplinary review board for violating supervisory responsibility, as it would have been his responsibility to ensure that the policies relevant to Harvey's detention were being followed, but his termination was later rescinded in favor of a demotion. (Id. at pp. 19, 43, 78-80.) Lastly, White was suspended by the disciplinary review board for violating “a) employee responsibility; and b) oath of office ethics and conduct.” (Id. at pp. 19-20.)

According to the SAC, during Harvey's detention, Leuschner, Kerr, and White committed violations of various SPD policies: SPD General Order #OPS-001 titled “Criminal Investigations,” which provides that “[a]nother investigator will monitor the interview through the video surveillance system as a coach to the interviewer,” (id. at p. 26); SPD General Order #OPS-010 titled “Video/Audio Recording Equipment,” which provides that “[p]rior to using the interview room wherein events are to be recorded, the interviewing detective/officer shall ensure that the video cameras are working properly prior to starting the interview,” (id. at p. 32); and SPD General Procedure #OPS-001, which provides that “[s]uspects or potential suspects will be kept under direct supervision and will not be left alone while in the interview room,” (id. at p. 33). Plaintiffs allege that these policies are intended, at least in part, to protect detainees. (Id. at p. 68.)

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs sued the City as well as Minter, Leuschner, Kerr, and White, in their individual capacities, in this Court on March 14, 2023. (Doc. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss, (doc. 19), and Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, (doc. 26). Defendants then filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 33.) Rather than responding to the motion, Plaintiffs filed, without leave of court, an amended complaint that only purported to amend particular aspects of the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 52.) The Court entered an Order striking that complaint from the record and directing Plaintiffs to file a comprehensive, standalone amended complaint “[t]o avoid any confusion about what claims are asserted against which [Defendants.” (Doc. 66, p. 4.) On February 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the at-issue SAC, which is 114 pages long and contains 588 enumerated paragraphs. (Doc. 67.)

In the SAC, Plaintiffs bring a state law negligence claim against Leuschner and White (Count I); a “deliberate indifference” claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against Leuschner and White (Count II); a supervisory liability claim under Section 1983 against Minter, Leuschner, and Kerr, and a Monell liability^[2] claim under Section 1983 against Minter (Count III); claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq. (“ADA”) against the City (Counts IV-V); a claim against the City for violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Count VI); a punitive damages claim against all Defendants (Count VII); and a claim for attorneys' fees against all Defendants (Count VIII). (Doc. 67, pp. 40-111.) Defendants then filed the at-issue Motion for More Definite Statement and Partial Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 70), arguing that the SAC is a shotgun pleading and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under their Section 1983 in Counts II and III, (doc. 70-1, pp. 3-21). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Response. (Doc. 73.)

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement

Defendants first argue that the SAC is an impermissible “shotgun pleading” which must be re-pled. (Doc. 70-1, pp. 7-9.) “A district court has the inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted). Shotgun pleadings are pleadings that violate either Federal Rule of Procedure 8(a)(2)^[3] or 10(b).^[4] Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has identified “four rough types” of shotgun pleadings: (1) “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts;” (2) a complaint that contains “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action;” (3) a complaint that fails to “separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief;” and (4) a complaint that “assert[s] multiple claims...