Godawa v. Byrd

• Citation: 798 F.3d 457
• Decision Date: 19 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–5963.,14–5963.
• Parties: Edward GODAWA and Tina Godawa, Administrators of the Estate of Michael Godawa, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. David BYRD, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

798 F.3d 457

Edward GODAWA and Tina Godawa, Administrators of the Estate of Michael Godawa, Plaintiffs–Appellants
v.
David BYRD, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 14–5963.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: April 28, 2015.
Decided and Filed: Aug. 19, 2015.
Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 1, 2015.

798 F.3d 460

ARGUED:Christopher D. Roach, The Deters Firm, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. Jeffrey C. Mando, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Christopher D. Roach, The Deters Firm, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. Jeffrey C. Mando, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Edward and Tina Godawa, as administrators of the estate of their son Michael Godawa, appeal from the district court's August 1, 2014 order and judgment granting in part Defendant David Byrd's motion for summary judgment, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' federal claims and state loss of consortium claim, and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs' other state law claims. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim.

For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs are the parents of Michael Godawa (“Godawa”), a young man who was fatally shot by a police officer, Defendant David Byrd, while attempting to flee from an arrest. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this case on December 27, 2012, raising federal and state law claims including a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim. Following the completion of discovery, both Plaintiffs and Defendant filed motions for summary judgment. The district court heard oral argument on these motions on June 27, 2014. On August 1, 2014, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment in part. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' federal claims and state loss of consortium claim with prejudice and dismissed Plaintiffs' other state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs timely appealed. This appeal exclusively addresses Plaintiffs' § 1983 excessive force claim.

B. Factual Background

This case is about an incident that occurred at approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 23, 2012, during which Defendant fatally shot Godawa as he was attempting to flee Defendant in a vehicle. The evidence regarding this incident is primarily comprised of: (1) video footage from Defendant's lapel camera, (2) surveillance video from the Finish Line Bar and Grill (“Finish Line”), and (3) Defendant's deposition. On the evening in question, Defendant was serving on bicycle patrol as a police officer

798 F.3d 461

for the city of Elsmere, Kentucky. According to Defendant, at approximately 1:00 a.m., he was approached by a Finish Line employee who was concerned that an individual walking around the parking lot was underage and drinking. The individual, who was later identified as Godawa, got into a vehicle and drove from the back of the parking lot to the front of the parking lot. Defendant approached the vehicle and asked Godawa if he had been drinking. Godawa claimed he had not been drinking. Defendant inquired about a bottle of beer that was visible in the vehicle's cup holder, and Godawa identified the beer as belonging to his girlfriend who was inside the bar.

After expressing disbelief that the beer belonged to Godawa's girlfriend, Defendant asked Godawa for identification. Godawa informed Defendant that he had a driver's license but that the license was not in his possession at the time. Defendant asked Godawa if he would be willing to submit to a field sobriety test. Godawa initially stated that he did not want to take a field sobriety test because he was nervous and afraid he would fail. At that point, Defendant asked Godawa to wait in the car while he went to his bicycle to get a notepad and pen. After walking to his bicycle, Defendant returned to the vehicle and asked for Godawa's name and social security number. Godawa answered Defendant's questions and provided his identifying information.

Defendant once again asked Godawa whether he had been drinking, and Godawa replied that he had consumed one or two drinks. He also admitted that the beer in the car belonged to him and not to his girlfriend. He claimed to have lied earlier because he was scared. Godawa then agreed to submit to a field sobriety test. Defendant told Godawa to “hold on” and went to his bicycle to request backup for the performance of the field sobriety test.

While Defendant was still at his bicycle, Godawa started his vehicle and began to back out of the parking spot. In the process of backing out of the parking spot, Godawa appears to hit or knock over Defendant's bicycle. Defendant yelled “Hey” and “Stop” multiple times, but Godawa did not stop. In his deposition, Defendant claims that he then “ran along the driver's side of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle and ordered [Godawa] to stop the car.” (R. 26–1, Byrd Deposition, Page ID # 202–03.) Defendant had his gun drawn as he ran to the front of Godawa's car and positioned himself ahead and to the right of the car's front passenger side while the car was temporarily stopped. In the moments that followed, Defendant and Godawa's car appear to have come into contact—though precisely how is disputed by the parties.

The moment of impact is not clearly depicted in either video. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant was moving toward the car just prior to the impact “to block the exit,” whereas Defendant claims that he was “target[ed]” by Godawa. Appellant's Br. at 7; Appellee's Br. at 7. While the lapel video clearly shows that Defendant and the vehicle came closer to each other, it is difficult to discern whether the car was driving toward Defendant, whether Defendant was moving toward the car, or both. In the Finish Line surveillance video, the precise moment of impact occurs just off-screen. In the seconds leading up to the impact, Defendant can be seen ahead and to the right of the front passenger side of Godawa's car. The car appears temporarily stopped at that point, having just finished backing out of a parking spot. As the car begins to pull forward, Defendant is seen advancing toward the car. The car then makes a right turn in the

798 F.3d 462

direction of the parking lot exit and, in the middle of the turn, Defendant seems to make contact with the car just off camera. This contact is suggested by Defendant's re-emergence on the video in which he seems to be moving off or pushing off the car and landing unsteadily on his feet. In his deposition, Defendant claimed that he was hit by Godawa's car “in the left leg about the knee” while the car was traveling at a speed of five to ten miles per hour. (R. 26–1, Byrd Deposition, Page ID # 204–05.) Defendant regains his balance quickly and appears to take three strides alongside the vehicle before shooting through the rear passenger-side window.

Photographs taken at the scene also indicate that the bullet that hit Godawa went through the back passenger-side window. Autopsy photos reveal that the bullet entered Godawa's body through the back of his right shoulder and traveled diagonally to the center left side of his chest.

After being shot, Godawa turned left out of the parking lot and drove south on Dixie Highway. Defendant can be heard on the video calling for backup, saying that shots had been fired. He can also be heard saying, “He ran over my bike, tried to hit me.” (R. 21–1, Lapel Video, 1:28:07–08.) Soon after turning onto Dixie Highway, Godawa turned around in a different parking lot and drove back toward Finish Line. When the car passed by Defendant, who was standing in the middle of Dixie Highway with his gun drawn, he observed that Godawa was “slumped over the steering wheel and appeared to be injured.” (R. 26–1, Byrd Deposition, Page ID # 209.) Godawa's vehicle struck a utility pole at the next intersection. Two other police officers arrived soon after, and Defendant rode his bicycle to where the car had stopped.

Emergency medical technicians were dispatched to the scene. Despite their efforts, Godawa subsequently died from “exsanguination due to perforation of the right lung” caused by the gunshot wound. (R. 54–1, Hamilton County Coroner's Report, Page ID # 801.)

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate if the materials in the record “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Barker v. Goodrich, 649 F.3d 428, 432 (6th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]n reviewing a summary judgment motion, credibility judgments and weighing of the evidence are prohibited.” Schreiber...