Washington v. Burts

RICKY WASHINGTON PLAINTIFF v. MELVIN BURTS, and THE CITY OF VERONA DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-21-SA-DAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

May 31, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ricky Washington filed his Complaint [1] in this Court on January 26, 2015 against the City of Verona, Mississippi and Melvin Burts in his individual capacity as a police officer for the City. Pursuing two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Washington claims that the City failed to properly supervise and train Burts, and that Burts used excessive force against him during his arrest. Washington also brings a third claim for negligence under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The City and Burts filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgement [42] requesting judgment in their favor on all of Washington's claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

In July of 2013, Washington got into a fight with another man in the parking lot of a gas station in Verona, Mississippi. According to Washington, although the fight was not initially going his way, he was eventually able to get his opponent bent over a car and was poised to punch, when someone suddenly grabbed him from behind, spun him around, and slammed him up against the nearby brick wall of the station. Washington quickly gave up when he realized that it was a police officer, Burts, that grabbed him from behind. Burts pulled Washington's hands up and behind his back, bent his right arm up injuring his hand and back, and placed him in handcuffs.¹ Washington and his opponent were transported to the City Jail where they were immediately released without charges.

Washington alleges that Burts' actions in bending Washington's hand and arm behind his back was an excessive use of force that violated his constitutional rights. Burts responds by arguing that the force used was not excessive, he did not violate Washington's constitutional rights, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Washington also alleges that the City failed to properly train and supervise Burts to prevent the use of excessive force. The City argues that no constitutional violation occurred because the force used was not excessive, and that Washington failed to sufficiently allege the existence of an official policymaker, official policy, and constitutional violation required to substantiate this claim.

Finally, Washington alleges that the City and Burts are liable for negligence under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act for the use of excessive force. Burts and the City argue that the Washington's MTCA claim is barred because Washington was engaged in criminal conduct, and that the facts as alleged by Washington do not rise to the requisite level of reckless disregard.

Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs summary judgment. Summary judgment is warranted when the evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The rule "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an elementessential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).

In reviewing the evidence, factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the non-movant, "but only when . . . both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. When such contradictory facts exist, the Court may "not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000).

The moving party "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548. The nonmoving party must then "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (citation omitted). This Court has no duty to "sift through the record in search of evidence to support" the nonmovant's opposition to summary judgment. Edwards v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 841 F.3d 360, 363 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915 n.7 (5th Cir. 1992)).

At the outset, the Court notes that the Plaintiff wholly failed to "designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (citation omitted). The Plaintiff did not enter a substantive summary judgment response. Instead, the Plaintiff deposited 168 pages of deposition testimony onto the docket accompanied by the following brief statement: "The issues in this case are clearly disputed and should therefore be determined by the jury." Although the Plaintiff clearly failed to meet his responsibility in thesummary judgment context, out of an abundance of caution, the Court conducted an independent review of the entire record in this case, and will analyze the relevant issues based on this review.

Excessive Force

To bring a § 1983 excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that he "suffered (1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the use of force that was excessive to the need and that (3) the force used was objectively unreasonable." Hamilton v. Kindred, 845 F.3d 659, 662 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Flores v. Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 396 (5th Cir. 2004).

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages to the extent that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. Crostley v. Lamar Cty., Texas, 717 F.3d 410, 422-24 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982); Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004)). "[T]he usual summary judgment burden of proof is altered in the case of a qualified immunity defense." Wolfe v. Meziere, 566 F. App'x 353, 354 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2005); Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cnty., 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001)). "An officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law." Id. The Plaintiff "cannot rest on conclusory allegations and assertions but must demonstrate genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the officer's conduct." Id.

"A plaintiff can overcome a qualified immunity defense by showing (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." Allen v. Cisneros, 815 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotingAshcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (2011); Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727). In excessive force cases, "the second prong of the analysis is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether the conduct of the defendants was objectively unreasonable in light of that then clearly established law." Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 750 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations and quotations omitted). "If officers of reasonable competence could disagree as to whether the plaintiff's rights were violated, the officer's qualified immunity remains intact." Id.

Because "the Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during a seizure is clearly established," Griggs, 841 F.3d at 312 (citing Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 2012), the relevant inquiry 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." Id. (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 398, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989)). The use of force must be evaluated "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Id. (citing Poole, 691 F.3d at 627); Graham, 490 U.S. at 397, 109 S. Ct. 1865). Whether a particular use of force was "objectively reasonable" depends on several factors, including 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. Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir. 2009). (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865).

The relevant facts, as alleged by the Plaintiff, are that he was actively engaged in a fight with his opponent bent over a car preparing to punch him when he was grabbed from behind and pushed up against a wall.² Only after he was against the wall with his hands partially behind his back did the Plaintiff realize that the person that grabbed him was a police officer, at which point he surrendered. Burts bent the Plaintiff's hand up behind him and handcuffed him.

Given that the Plaintiff was actively engaged in a fight when Burts arrived, and that the Plaintiff did not surrender to Burt's control until after he was already against the wall, Burt's use of force in bending the Plaintiff's hand up behind in order to subdue and handcuff him was not excessive to the need. Moreover, given the severity of the crime at issue, a fistfight in a public place, and the immediate threat that the Plaintiff posed to the...