Alcocer v. Bulloch Cnty. Sheriff's Office
| Decision Date | 29 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | CV 615-94 |
| Parties | JUDITH ALCOCER, Plaintiff, v. BULLOCH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment (doc. 57) and two motions to exclude expert testimony (docs. 71, 72) filed by Defendants, Sheriff Lynn M. Anderson, Deputy Randall Norman, Sergeant Kent Munsey, Jailer Ashley Mills, Captain John Staten, and Captain Jason Kearney. (Doc. 57.) Plaintiff, Judith Alcocer, has sued for damages under § 1983 alleging that Defendants committed a variety of constitutional violations. Defendants claim that they committed no constitutional violations and that they cannot be found liable for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment and it DENIES Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony.
At approximately 1:30 p.m. on January 30, 2014, Deputy Randall Norman and Sergeant Kent Munsey of the Bulloch County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office") observed Plaintiff driving east on U.S. Highway 80 in Bulloch County, Georgia. (Doc. 94-2 at 2.) After running Plaintiff's license plate through the Georgia Crime Information Center ("GCIC"), Deputy Norman discovered that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license. (Doc. 57-1 at 2.) Suspecting that Plaintiff was the vehicle's owner, he pulled onto the road to stop Plaintiff. (Id.)
Before Deputy Norman could activate his lights, however, Plaintiff pulled into a convenience store parking lot and went inside to make a purchase. (Doc. 105 at 4.) Deputy Norman followed her into the parking lot and confronted her in the store. (Doc. 57-1 at 2.) Deputy Norman confirmed Plaintiff's identify and that she was the vehicle's owner. (Id.) He then issued Plaintiff a citation for driving with a suspended license, arrested her for the misdemeanor offense, and transported her to the Bulloch County Detention Center ("Detention Center"). (Id.)
Detention Center staff booked Plaintiff and scanned her fingerprints into the computer system. Plaintiff's prints were then "automatically sent to several different databases, including GCIC, NCIC, and federal law enforcement agencydatabases." (Doc. 57-1 at 4.) Around 2 p.m., the Sheriff's Office received a fax from Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("I.C.E."). (Doc. 97-1 at 2.) It stated:
While Detention Center staff were booking Plaintiff, her sister, Susana Hinojosa, attempted to secure her release. (Doc. 96 at 8-11.) Mrs. Hinojosa asked Detention Center staff what she needed to do to get Plaintiff out of jail. (Id. at 10.) They told Mrs. Hinojosa that Plaintiff needed a $2, 000 bond. (Id.) Mrs. Hinojosa walked across the street to a bonding company, secured a bond for Plaintiff, returned to the Detention Center, and awaited Plaintiff's release. (Id. at 10-12.)
After waiting several hours, the bonding company called Mrs. Hinojosa. (Id. at 12) It informed her that the Detention Center would not release Plaintiff because Plaintiff was under an I.C.E. hold. (Id.) Mrs. Hinojosa once again questioned Detention Center staff about Plaintiff's release. (Id.) Detention Center staff confirmed that they would not release Plaintiff because I.C.E. had placed a hold on her. (Id.)
Naturally, Mrs. Hinojosa protested. (Id. at 13.) She informed Detention Center staff that Plaintiff was a UnitedStates citizen born in South Carolina. (Id.) She also asked what documentation she needed to prove Plaintiff's citizenship. (Id.) Detention Center staff, however, largely ignored Mrs. Hinojosa. Ultimately, she failed to secure Plaintiff's release and had to return home for the evening. (Id. at 13-14.)
The next morning, January 31, 2014, Mrs. Hinojosa continued her efforts. (Id. at 15-16.) She called the Sheriff's Office every fifteen minutes from 8 a.m. until 11 a.m. (Id.) Around 11 a.m. the Sheriff's Office finally gave her a number for I.C.E.'s Savannah office. (Id. at 16.) She eventually reached Mr. Franks, an I.C.E. agent. (Id. at 17, 19.) Mr. Franks told Mrs. Hinojosa that he would contact the Sheriff's Office to see why it was holding Plaintiff. (Id. at 20.) He also said he would look into sending an order to release Plaintiff. (Id.) Lastly, he told Mrs. Hinojosa to take Plaintiff's birth certificate, social security card, medical records, and school records to the Sheriff's Office. (Id.)
Mrs. Hinojosa followed Mr. Frank's instructions and took the suggested paperwork to the Detention Center around 12 p.m. that day. (Id. at 15, 23.) According to Mrs. Hinojosa, when she tried to show the paperwork to the Detention Center staff, (Id. at 24.)Still unable to secure Plaintiff's release, Mrs. Hinojosa took the paperwork with her and returned to her job. (Id. at 23.)
Later in the day, Mr. Frank's called Mrs. Hinojosa to tell her that he was sending a fax ordering the Detention Center to release Plaintiff. (Id. at 21.) The time stamp on the order sent by Mr. Franks states 3:39 p.m. (Doc. 94-5 at 2.) Plaintiff left the Detention Center at 5:44 p.m. on January 31, 2014 — approximately 25 hours after her initial arrival. (Doc. 94-1 at 2.)
Defendants, for their part, never explicitly deny that they were holding Plaintiff because of the detainer. Neither do they deny that they refused to post the bond secured by Mrs. Hinojosa. Rather, they state only that on January 31 — the day after Plaintiff's arrest — they "received a notification from [I.C.E.] that the detainer previously placed by the Savannah [I.C.E.] office was cancelled," and "in any event, Plaintiff secured a bond . . . . and [ ] left the [Detention Center] at approximately 5:45 p.m." (Doc. 57-6 at 5.)
Summary judgment is appropriate only if "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). Facts are "material" if they could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law, and a dispute isgenuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court must view factual disputes in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), and must draw "all justifiable inferences in [the non-moving party's] favor." United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). The Court should not weigh the evidence or determine credibility. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
The moving party has the initial burden of showing the Court, by reference to materials on file, the basis for the motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Because the standard for summary judgment mirrors that of a directed verdict, the initial burden of proof required by either party depends on who carries the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 323. When the movant does not carry the burden of proof at trial, it may satisfy its initial burden in one of two ways — by negating an essential element of the non-movant1s case or by showing that there is no evidence to prove a fact necessary to the non-movant's case. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 606-08 (11th Cir. 1991) ( Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) and Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 317). The movant cannot meet its initial burden by merelydeclaring that the non-moving party cannot meet its burden at trial. Clark, 929 F.2d at 608.
If — and only if — the movant carries its initial burden, the non-movant must "demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment." Id. When the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the non-movant must tailor its response to the method by which the movant carried its initial burden. If the movant presented evidence affirmatively negating a material fact, the non-movant "must respond with evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial on the material fact sought to be negated." Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 1993). If the movant shows an absence of evidence on a material fact, the non-movant must either show that the record contains evidence that was "overlooked or ignored" by the movant or "come forward with additional evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency." Id. at 1117. The non-movant cannot carry its burden by relying on the pleadings or by repeating conclusory allegations contained in the complaint. See Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1981). Rather, the non-movant must respond with affidavits or as otherwise provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
In this action, the Clerk of Court gave Plaintiff notice of the motion for summary judgment and informed her of the summaryjudgment rules, the right to file affidavits or other materials in opposition, and the consequences of default. (Doc. 59.) Therefore, the notice requirements of Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), are satisfied. The time for filing materials in opposition has expired, and the motion is now ripe for consideration.
In her complaint, Plaintiff challenges two...
To continue reading
Request your trial