Wagster v. Gautreaux

JASON WAGSTER & ELENA AUCOIN v. SIDNEY J. GAUTREAUX, III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF EASTBATON ROUGE PARISH, CITY/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, THROUGHMAYOR MELVIN L. "KIP" HOLDEN, LIEUTENANT DARRYL MICHELLI,AND CERTAIN UNKNOWN OFFICERS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00011-SDD-SCR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Signed: November 26, 2013

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment¹ filed by Defendants, Sidney J. Gautreaux, III, in his capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, Lt. Darryl Michelli, Detective Rob Chambers, Detective Eric David, Detective Nathan Harrison, Detective Stephen Hill, Detective Leonard Starnes, Detective Brian Stewart, Detective Eric Jones, and Sergeant Bobby Moore (collectively, "Officers" or "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Jason Wagster and Elena Aucoin, have filed an Opposition² to the motion to which Defendants have filed a Reply.³ For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs have filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations against each of the Defendants in their individual and official capacities under the Fourth andFourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution for illegally searching their homes and personages; they have also asserted various state law claims. Individually, Plaintiff Jason Wagster alleges a state law claim against Defendants for assault and battery, while both Plaintiffs allege state law claims for false arrest, illegal detainment and imprisonment, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress against all of the Defendants.⁴ Plaintiffs have also alleged that "Defendants Lieutenant Daryl Michelli and Certain Other Unknown Officers" used excessive force during the unwarranted searches and investigations.⁵ Plaintiffs' claims allegedly arise out of two "unwarranted, unjustified, and wholly improper 'investigations' of their home" on January 7, 2011 and April 4, 2011 by Defendants.⁶

Plaintiffs have also raised 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Sheriff Gautreaux in his official capacity contending that his policies and customs do not require "appropriate in-service training or retraining of officers who were known to have engaged in police misconduct."⁷ Plaintiffs further contend that these acts, customs, and policies "amounted to deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and proximately caused their injuries."⁸ As for their state law claims, Plaintiffs allege that Sheriff Gautreaux is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of his Defendant employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior.⁹ Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendants "wrongfully detained, arrested, falsely imprisoned, illegally searched, andviciously abused" Plaintiffs and should be held accountable under state law.¹⁰ Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees, per 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and maintain that they acted reasonably under the circumstances, in accordance with their training and the law, and are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

A. January 7, 2011 Incident

The parties have stipulated that on, January 7, 2011, "several EBRSO detectives, including Detective Eric Jones, Detective Rob Chambers, Detective Len Starnes, and Detective Nathan Harrison, arrived [at] the Wagster residence."¹¹ At the time of their arrival, Plaintiff Wagster was not at home.¹² Plaintiff Aucoin greeted the Officers prior to knocking on the home's door.¹³ The Officers had no search warrant to enter the home.¹⁴ The Officers have claimed that they had received complaints from neighbors regarding Plaintiffs' residence and its occupants.¹⁵ When the Officers asked Aucoin for permission to enter the home, she denied their request.¹⁶ Plaintiff Aucoin was never told she could not enter her home.¹⁷ In fact, one of the Officers told Ms. Aucoin to reenter her home to retrieve her brother, which she did.¹⁸ Upon exiting the home, the officers began questioning Aucoin and her brother.¹⁹ The Officers leftPlaintiffs' property without entering the residence.²⁰ Plaintiffs contend that the event was captured on their home surveillance video camera.²¹

B. April 4, 2011 Incidents

On April 4, 2011 there were two alleged incidents that occurred at the Wagster residence. The first incident occurred when "a U.S. Marshal's task force comprised of Task Force Officer and EBRSO Deputy Bobby Moore, Task Force Officer Nick "Doe", Task Force Officer Dave Flausse, Task Force Officer Mike Lorio, and Task Force Officer Larry Walters arrived at the Wagster residence looking for a fugitive from a Livingston Parish case who, upon information and belief, resided at the Wagster residence."²² Before the Officers had an opportunity to knock on the door, Plaintiff Wagster exited his home through the screen door and met them outside.²³ At some point thereafter, Plaintiff Wagster was brought to the ground and handcuffed. However, the factual circumstances between the time Wagster exited his home and the time he was handcuffed are disputed by the parties.

Plaintiff Wagster claims he was grabbed by an Officer who pointed his gun at Wagster's dog that had also exited Plaintiffs' home. Wagster has also alleged that he "pulled the dog back to himself when the officer "retrained his weapon directly at [Wagster's] head."²⁴ Wagster alleges that this same Officer subsequently grabbed him and threw him to the ground, causing him severe neck injuries and scrapes on his knees; thereafter, Wagster contends another Officer grabbed him and aggressivelyhandcuffed him, leaving marks and abrasions on his wrist.²⁵ He further alleges that he was "detained" and "patted down" in a contraband search.²⁶ Wagster claims that the Defendants "kicked in a door and entered the home, breaking a porch door frame in the process."²⁷ After the Officers exited Plaintiff's home, Wagster alleges that he was released from the handcuffs and the Task Force Officers departed.²⁸

The Officers have a contrary view of the events preceding Plaintiff's detainment. According to Sergeant Bobby Moore ("Moore"), Plaintiff Wagster was detained for resisting an officer after he walked away from the Officers and slammed a screen porch door on Task Force Officer Mike Lorio, who then placed Wagster on the ground.²⁹ Moore contends that he and Task Force Officer Dave Flausse then handcuffed Wagster,³⁰ Thereafter, Sergeant Moore entered Plaintiffs' home to conduct a protective sweep which lasted approximately 18 seconds.³¹ After conducting the sweep, the Officers left the Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs contend that the event was captured on their home surveillance video cameras.³²

The second incident at Wagster's residence occurred later the same morning. The parties agree that Officers, inter alia, Moore and Harrison returned to Plaintiffs' home. On this second visit Plaintiff has alleged that, upon exiting his home, two officersinformed him that he was being detained but offered no additional information. Subsequently, two additional officers arrived at Plaintiffs' home. Thereafter, Plaintiff Wagster provided both written and verbal consent to the Officers' request to enter and search Plaintiffs' home.³³ The Officers completed their search without finding anything in Plaintiffs' residence.³⁴

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. 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."³⁵ "When assessing whether a dispute to any material fact exists, we consider all of the evidence in the record but refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence."³⁶ A party moving for summary judgment "must 'demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,' but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant's case."³⁷ If the moving party satisfies its burden, "the non-moving party must show that summary judgment is inappropriate by setting 'forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.'"³⁸ However, the non-moving party's burden "is notsatisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conciusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence."³⁹

Notably, "[a] genuine issue of material fact exists, 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'"⁴⁰ All reasonable factual inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.⁴¹ Nevertheless, "[t]he Court has no duty to search the record for material fact issues. Rather, the party opposing the summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate precisely how this evidence supports his claim."⁴² "Conciusory allegations unsupported by specific facts ,.. will not prevent the award of summary judgment; 'the plaintiff [canjnot rest on his allegations ... to get to a jury without any "significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.'""⁴³ Ultimately "[t]he substantive law dictates which facts are material."⁴⁴

B. Claims Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

"Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person 'of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'"⁴⁵ in order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the plaintiff must: "(1) allege that the conduct in question deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and (2) demonstrate that theconduct or deprivation complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law."⁴⁶ As for the first element, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the United States Constitution...