Sign Up for Vincent AI
Williams v. City of Grand Rapids
Shawn Christopher Cabot, Christopher Trainor & Associates, White Lake, MI, for Plaintiff.
Elizabeth J. Fossel, Sarah J. Hartman, Tobijah B. Koenig, Grand Rapids, City of (City Attorney), Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Dominic Williams brings this civil rights action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams alleges that Defendants Ryan Johnston and Makentorch Seide violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, and arrest without probable cause. Williams also brings a municipal liability claim against Defendant the City of Grand Rapids. Finally, Williams asserts state law claims of assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment, and gross negligence against the individual officers. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 37). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion.
At approximately 11:30 p.m. on March 2, 2020, Williams—who was driving his wife's car—stopped at a BP gas station in Grand Rapids. (Police Rep., ECF No. 38-1, PageID.143.) While monitoring the gas station parking lot, which is in a high-crime area, officer Johnston ran a license plate check on the car. (Id., Johnston Dep. 27-28, ECF No. 38-2.) The plate check revealed that Williams's wife, the registered owner of the vehicle, had an outstanding arrest warrant. (Police Rep., PageID.143.) When exiting the gas station, Williams failed to use a turn signal. (Id.) Johnston followed behind the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. (Id.)
Johnston approached the vehicle and repeatedly asked Williams to roll his window down. (Johnston Body Camera Video 1:04-1:34, ECF No. 44-5.) Williams refused to roll his window down all the way and said that he feared for his life. (Id. at 1:37-1:42.) During this time, Williams was also talking to his wife on the phone. Johnston asked him to hang up the phone and, again, to roll his window down, and Williams replied, "hold on, man." (Id. at 1:43-1:59.) Williams then stated that he wanted to record the interaction for his safety, and Johnston said that he was likewise recording. (Id. at 1:59-2:05.)
Johnston asked Williams for his license (Id. at 2:46-2:48.) Johnston then explained that he stopped Williams because he failed to use a turn signal when pulling out of the gas station and because there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the owner of the vehicle. (Id. at 2:57-3:10.) Williams handed Johnston the vehicle's registration through a crack in the window but indicated that he only had a photo of his license on his cell phone. (Id. at 3:11-3:33.) Johnston informed Williams that driving without a license on your person is a misdemeanor and asked Williams to step out of the vehicle. (Id. at 3:33-3:42.) While Johnston spoke with Williams, Officer Seide arrived on the scene and stood next to Johnston. (Seide Body Camera Video 1:38-1:51, ECF No. 44-7.)
Johnston then opened the driver's side door, and Williams stepped out of the vehicle while Johnston had a hand on his shoulder. (Id. at 1:52-2:01; Johnston Body Camera Video 3:55-4:06.) Williams contends that he was pulled from the vehicle. (Williams Dep. 27, ECF No. 38-9.) Johnston informed Williams that he was under arrest and instructed Williams to put his hands behind his back and to put his left hand behind his head. (Johnston Body Camera Video 4:03-4:18.) Johnston, who had control of one of Williams's hands, then attempted to handcuff him. (Johnston Dep. 54-56.)
Johnston and Seide testified that while Johnston attempted to secure the handcuffs, Williams dropped his weight and deliberately leaned into the vehicle. (Id. at 55-56; Seide Dep. 28, ECF No. 38-6.) Williams testified that he fell into the vehicle because of the way his body was positioned. (Williams Dep. 29-30.) Officer Clark's body camera—which provides a view from the passenger's side of the vehicle—depicts Williams bent over inside the car. (Clark Body Camera Video 2:30-2:35, ECF No. 44-6.)
Johnston then used a "straight arm-bar" maneuver to bring Williams to the ground. (Johnston Dep. 58.) Johnston testified that he dropped his knee so that it broke Williams's fall. (Id. at 59.) Williams could not recall what side he fell on but testified that his whole body hit the ground. (Williams Dep. 40-41.)
Once on the ground, Williams felt a knee or multiple knees on his back. (Williams Dep. 86.) Johnston and Seide testified that they do not recall putting a knee to Williams's back. (Johnston Dep. 60; Seide Dep. 30.) Johnston's dash camera video depicts both Johnston and Seide placing a knee on Williams's back for approximately ten seconds while securing the handcuffs. (Johnston Dash Camera Video 5:28-5:39.) It also depicts Seide immediately stepping away once the handcuffs were applied, and Johnston remaining on the ground next to Williams. (Id. at 5:40-5:45.) Williams testified that after the handcuffs were secured, an officer "still had his knee on [him] for a little minute . . . possibly a couple seconds." (Williams Dep. 88.)
Once Johnston and Seide secured the handcuffs, Johnston ensured that there was proper spacing between the handcuff and Williams's wrists. (Johnston Dep. 62; Johnston Body Camera Video 5:11-5:40.) Johnston then performed a search of Williams incident to arrest and placed Williams in the back seat of his patrol car. (Johnston Dep. 61; Johnston Body Camera Video 5:45-7:14.) Johnston asked if Williams needed any medical attention, and Williams responded that his knee hurt but that he did not need medical attention. (Johnston Body Camera Video 7:15-7:22.)
Per Grand Rapids Police Department ("GRPD") policy, Sergeant Hoornstra responded to the use of force incident and arrived on the scene soon after to photograph Williams's injuries and interview him. (Hoornstra Dep. 9-10, ECF No. 38-8; see also On-Scene Injury Images, ECF No. 38-10.) Before transporting Williams to jail, Johnston retrieved Williams's personal belongings—including his cell phone—from his vehicle before it would be towed. (Johnston Dep. 64.) Johnston's body camera footage depicts him swiping up on the screen, which he contends he did to stop the video recording. (Id. at 65; Johnston Body Camera Video 29:13-29:25.) Once in his patrol car with Williams, Williams asked him to retrieve his house key from the vehicle and Johnston said, "I've got your phone for you man." (Johnston Body Camera Video 34:14-34:39.)
While Williams was secure in the patrol car, Johnston learned that Williams's license was also suspended. (Id. at 21:37-22:15.) Johnston ultimately ticketed Williams for two misdemeanors: (1) driving with a suspended license in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.904 and (2) assaulting, battering, or resisting a police officer in violation of Grand Rapids City Ordinance § 9.135. (Ticket, ECF 42-4, PageID.798.)
Once at the jail, Williams complained to the nurse of pain in both wrists but did not complain about his knee, shin, or other injuries and did not request further medical attention. (Williams Dep. 44-45.) During a series of visits to various hospitals as well as his primary care physician, Williams received diagnoses of tenderness and pain in his right knee, right wrist, right elbow, and shoulders; right carpal tunnel syndrome; lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) of the right elbow; and post-concussion syndrome. (See Butterworth Hosp. Med. Recs., ECF No. 44-9; Southwest Med. Ctr. Med. Recs., ECF No. 44-10; Metro Health Hosp. Med. Recs., ECF No. 44-11; Thornapple Valley Orthopedics Med. Recs., ECF No. 44-12.) Williams also sought mental health treatment for hallucinations, mood swings, and depressive symptoms. (See Arbor Circle Med. Recs., ECF No. 44-13.)
Summary judgment is appropriate "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A material fact is genuinely disputed when there is "sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). Summary judgment is not an opportunity for the Court to resolve factual disputes. Id. The Court "must shy away from weighing the evidence and instead view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in their favor." Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 999 F.3d 400, 410 (6th Cir. 2021).
"After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007). A motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same review standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). HDC, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, 675 F.3d 608, 611 (6th Cir. 2012). To survive the motion, the "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, ...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting