Ames v. City of Tempe
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | CV-20-02102-PHX-DWL |
| Parties | Dravon Ames, Plaintiff, v. City of Tempe, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Dravon Ames (“Plaintiff') alleges that Officers Cameron Payne and Cody Conklin of the Tempe Police Department violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him. Plaintiff also asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Tempe (the “City”), alleging municipal liability for the officers' conduct. Now pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Officers Payne and Conklin and the City (together, “Defendants”). (Doc. 113.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
This litigation arises from Officers Payne's and Conklin's use of force against Plaintiff on October 31, 2018. Because the summary judgment analysis turns, in significant part, on which version of the facts must be accepted, the Court begins with a detailed factual summary, indicating as appropriate where one side's version of the facts need not be credited.
Although many of the material facts are undisputed (including the officers' actions throughout the encounter), the parties' motion papers provide sharply different accounts of Plaintiff's conduct-Defendants assert that Plaintiff physically resisted and attempted to leave, while Plaintiff describes his behavior as compliant and nonthreatening. However, the parties rely on the same exhibits to support their respective positions. Specifically both sides submitted video footage of the incident, captured by the officers' body cameras. (Doc. 116 []; Doc. 124 [Plaintiff's notice of the same]). Additionally, both sides cite the deposition testimony of Officers Payne and Conklin. (Docs. 113-10 [Payne dep.], 113-11 [Conklin dep.] 119-4 [Conklin dep.], 119-6 [Payne dep.].) In contrast Plaintiff does not provide any sworn testimony.
During oral argument, Plaintiff sought to justify his failure to provide a competing account of the encounter by arguing that, because the video evidence is often too blurry and/or misdirected to conclusively establish what happened, the officers' testimony regarding the various ways he engaged in resistance over the course of the encounter must be disregarded for summary judgment purposes. This argument is unavailing. As an initial matter (and as discussed in more detail below), in some instances the video evidence corroborates the officers' account and contradicts the competing narrative that Plaintiff's counsel has attempted to construct in Plaintiff's motion papers. In those instances, even if Plaintiff had submitted a declaration or deposition testimony disputing the officers' account (which, again, Plaintiff failed to do), the Court would be required under Rule 56 to reject Plaintiff's account in light of the contradictory video evidence. Hernandez v. City of Gilbert, 989 F.3d 739, 743 (9th Cir. 2021); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) ().
But Plaintiff also misunderstands the evidentiary value of the video footage that is blurry and/or misdirected. To give one example (and as discussed in more detail below), Officer Conklin testified that Plaintiff attempted to grab his gun during a portion of the encounter. No reasonable juror could find that the available video footage corroborates or contradicts Officer Conklin's testimony on this point-the cameras are blocked or pointed elsewhere. Although Plaintiff argues that the absence of corroboration means that Officer Conklin's testimony on this point must be disregarded, this reflects a misunderstanding of how Rule 56 works. When, as here, “the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). See also Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 ( ). Thus, it was not enough for Plaintiff to attempt to create “metaphysical doubts” about the accuracy of the officers' sworn testimony by pointing to video footage that no reasonable juror could view as confirming or contradicting that testimony. See also Baker v. Tevault, 2022 WL 7033701, *3 n.5 (D. Ariz. 2022) ( ) (citations omitted).[1] With these principles in mind, the relevant facts for summary judgment purposes are as follows:[2]
On October 31, 2018, around 5:00 AM, Officers Payne and Conklin were dispatched to a possible traffic accident at the intersection of Rural Road and University Drive in Tempe, Arizona. (Doc. 119-1 at 2, 4.) Officer Conklin arrived first. (Id. at 2.) The video footage from Officer Conklin's body camera, which was enclosed as Exhibit 3 to Defendants' motion, shows the following:
As Officer Conklin exits his vehicle, Plaintiff is standing in the middle of the street near a black sedan, wearing socks (but not shoes) and gloves. The driver's side front door of the sedan is ajar:
(Image Omitted)
Plaintiff is mid-sentence as the video begins:
In the footage captured by Officer Conklin's camera, Officer Payne can be seen exiting the second police vehicle. The footage from Officer Payne's body camera (which was enclosed as Exhibit 4 to Defendants' motion), viewed together with the footage from Officer Conklin's camera, shows the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial