Williams v. Olsen

638 F.Supp.3d 204

Ellazar WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. James OLSEN, et al., Defendants.

1:18-CV-01446 (LEK/DJS)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

Signed November 1, 2022

James C. Knox, Julie A. Nociolo, E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP, Troy, NY, for Plaintiff.

Abigail W. Rehfuss, Stephen J. Rehfuss, The Rehfuss Law Firm, P.C., Latham, NY, for Defendants James Olsen, Christopher Cornell, Lawrence Heid.

Stephen J. Rehfuss, The Rehfuss Law Firm, P.C., Latham, NY, for Defendant John Does 23-25.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

LAWRENCE E. KAHN, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ellazar Williams commenced this action on December 16, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint on August 20, 2019, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights against the City of Albany; John Does Nos. 1 through 25 unknown law enforcement officers of the City of Albany Police Department; and Detectives James Olsen, Christopher Cornell, and Lawrence Heid (collectively, "Defendants"). Dkt. No. 47 ("Amended Complaint"). Plaintiff's claims arise out of a use of force incident that rendered him permanently paralyzed from the chest down. Am. Compl. ¶ 22.

Now before the Court is a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 90-1 ("Defendants' Summary Judgment Memorandum"), along with a statement of material facts, Dkt. No. 90-2 ("Defendants' Statement of Material Facts"), filed by Defendants. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 98 ("Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts"); Dkt. No. 100 ("Plaintiff's Memorandum"). Defendants have also submitted a reply memorandum, Dkt. No. 104, ("Defendants' Reply"). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

The following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted.

1. Events Preceding the Encounter Between Plaintiff and the Detectives

On August 20, 2018—before heading to the "260 block of Central Avenue"—Plaintiff was smoking marijuana with his girlfriend's 18-year-old son at their home in Albany, New York. Defs.' SMF ¶ 1. Meanwhile a few blocks away, Detectives Olsen, Heid, and Cornell were working as a three-man team in an unmarked police vehicle assisting Albany's criminal response unit ("CRU") with a firearm purchase near Clinton Avenue. Id. ¶ 2.

At approximately 4:30 PM that day, the police dispatch received a 911 call concerning a fight outside a store located at 265 Central Avenue. Id. ¶ 3. The caller—an employee of the store—informed dispatch that there was an individual with a gun threatening people. Id. The caller told dispatch that the threatening individual was throwing glass and water bottles at the store's front door and described the individual as a Black male with a gray hoodie and dark faded jeans. Id. Dispatch then transmitted the call to other members of the police force. Id.

In her statement to police later that day, the employee who made the 911 call identified the threatening individual as having braided hair and wearing a gray hoodie with dark jeans. Id. ¶ 4. The employee stated that the individual in the gray hoodie told the store owner, "I will put a burner in you[,]" before reaching to his side and pulling out a gun. Id. The store owner also confirmed in a police statement that a Black man with a gray hoodie and braids threatened him while showing a gun at his side. Id. The store owner identified Plaintiff in a "photo lineup" as the "kid that got the gun." Id.

Shortly after the CRU purchase was finalized, Olsen, Cornell, and Heid were notified by Sgt. Plante that a call for a person with a gun was dispatched describing a Black male with a gray hoodie and gun in the 260 block of Central Avenue. Id. ¶ 6. Plante was insistent that the individual was not merely suspected of having a handgun, but that he possessed a handgun and threatened someone with the gun. Id. ¶ 7. In response, Olsen, Heid, and Cornell immediately drove toward Clinton Avenue, coming from Quail Street, conjecturing that the suspect would be coming up by North Lake Avenue. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. After making a right turn onto North Lake, Heid noticed a group with three individuals on the corner of the intersection, one of whom fit the description of the Black male in possession of a gun wearing a hoodie. Id. ¶ 10. This individual was Plaintiff. Id.

2. The Early Encounter Between Defendants and Plaintiff

Plaintiff and Defendants sharply disagree about the encounter and ensuing chase. Defendants state that Heid pulled the unmarked police vehicle "diagonally" to the group and identified himself and the other two detectives by saying, "police, stop." Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff, however, says that he never heard Heid identify himself or the other detectives as police officers. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 12. Additionally, Plaintiff says that Heid only "believed" that the officers identified themselves. Id.

Defendants state that after Heid identified the three detectives as police, Plaintiff began to run, and made a 180-degree turn heading east down Sherman Street. Defs.' SMF ¶ 13. Heid, Cornell, and Olsen pursued Plaintiff and left the other two individuals at the corner of North Lake because only Plaintiff fit the description of the Black male with a gun. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff disagrees with this characterization by pointing out that the officers never identified themselves, and contends that he did not make a U-turn, but instead ran away from the unmarked car and unidentified police officers because he was scared. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 13-14. Plaintiff also states that the entire group of three ran from the unmarked vehicle, not just Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 14.

3. The Ensuing Chase

As the detectives chased Plaintiff, Cornell began using his personal radio over the main police line to call out the officers' direction of travel and pursuit details. Defs.' SMF. ¶ 15. The vehicle chase led the detectives to follow Plaintiff through a parking lot to Elk Street, eventually cutting across the Tony Clement School parking lot. Id. ¶ 16.

Defendants contend that during the pursuit, Plaintiff kept his right hand concealed. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff, however, states that his hand was not in any way concealed throughout the entirety of the pursuit. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 17.

Heid slowed the vehicle as he turned into the parking lot that Plaintiff ran into, briefly coming to a stop. Defs.' SMF ¶ 18. At this point, Olsen exited the passenger side of the vehicle and ran around the front of the vehicle, following Plaintiff into the courtyard at the Tony Clement School. Id. Defendants state that Olsen was unable to see Plaintiff's hands because he concealed them, and given the nature of the call Olsen received, he considered Plaintiff a threat. Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff, however, asserts that video evidence demonstrates that his hands were not concealed because his arms pumped as he ran. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 19. Further, Plaintiff contests the proposition that he should have been considered a threat. Id.

After briefly stopping for Olsen to exit the vehicle, Heid drove closer to the courtyard before putting the vehicle in park. Defs.' SMF. ¶ 20. At this point, Heid and Cornell witnessed Olsen run after Plaintiff, entering the courtyard from the northern part of the parking lot. Id. Only Olsen entered the courtyard initially, with Heid and Cornell behind on foot. Id. ¶ 21.

Defendants posit that Heid put the vehicle in park and drew his weapon, making his way down the sidewalk toward the courtyard, id. ¶ 22, but Plaintiff retorts that video evidence establishes that at the time of the shooting, Heid remained in the vehicle, Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 22.

The parties disagree about whether Plaintiff could have exited the courtyard from a different location from where he entered; Defendants state that Plaintiff could not have left the area without running into Olsen based on the courtyard's high and unscalable fence on the opposite side of where Plaintiff entered, Defs.' SMF. ¶ 20, while Plaintiff says he could have scaled the fence, Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 24. Additionally, Defendants state that Olsen never ran directly behind Plaintiff. Defs.' SMF. ¶¶ 24, 27. Instead, they claim Olsen staggered his running to ensure he did not get out ahead of Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff argues that the video evidence belies this assertion, showing that Olsen was directly behind Plaintiff several times. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 25.

According to Defendants, as Olsen entered the courtyard, he was staggered to the left of Plaintiff, Defs.' SMF. ¶ 28; Plaintiff was to the right of Olsen, running toward a fenced area at the top of the courtyard, id. Olsen claims to have seen "something" in Plaintiff's right hand. Plaintiff, however, disputes that Olsen was adjacent to him because there was only one opening in the courtyard each could have entered from. Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' SMF ¶ 28. Moreover, Plaintiff disputes that he had anything in his hand, and given Olsen's position at this point in time, Plaintiff disputes that Olsen could have seen Plaintiff, much less his hand because Olsen was far behind Plaintiff. Id.

4. The Shooting

The parties sharply disagree over the circumstances that directly preceded the shooting of Plaintiff.

a. Defendants' Version of the Shooting

Defendants assert that when Heid was in pursuit running to the courtyard, he heard "fear" in Olsen's voice after hearing Olsen exclaim, "[L]ook at his hand." Defs.' SMF. ¶ 29. Heid states that he then heard Olsen direct Plaintiff to "drop it" in reference to a knife. Id. Approximately four seconds later, Plaintiff tripped, hit the ground, and inadvertently dropped a large knife. Id. ¶ 30.¹ Olsen claims to have seen the knife, which had a long-serrated blade. Id. According to Defendants, while Plaintiff was on the ground for "approximately 1.735 seconds[,]" Olsen yelled, "get on the ground, get on the ground, let me see your hands, drop it,...