Anderson v. Driskill
| Decision Date | 26 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-00231-LPR |
| Citation | 550 F.Supp.3d 596 |
| Parties | Tawona Warren ANDERSON Guardian of the Person and Estate of Rayshawn Warren, Plaintiff v. Doyne DRISKILL Individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Blytheville, Arkansas, Ross A. Thompson Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Blytheville, Arkansas, and City of Blytheville, Arkansas, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Danny Ray Williams, Danny R. Williams & Associates, Little Rock, AR, Furonda Brasfield, Law Office of Furonda Brasfield PLLC, Stuttgart, AR, for Plaintiff.
Jenna Adams, Arkansas Municipal League, North Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.
Some cases try judges’ souls. This is one of them. A man with mental illness, who was at most a misdemeanant, has died after being arrested; his mother, who is most assuredly in unbearable anguish, believes one or more of the arresting police officers or emergency medical technicians at the scene are to blame and wants them held to account. Any human being would have the utmost sympathy for the Plaintiff in this case. But judges are sworn to put aside such feelings of sympathy and to decide cases impartially—solely based on the law. It is the only way our justice system can function fairly for all participants. And it is what I do here. Nonetheless, and as I have noted in a prior Order, this is precisely the type of case that warrants a hard second look from the Court of Appeals to ensure that my decision represents an accurate understanding and application of governing precedent.
On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff Tawona Anderson, in her capacity as the Guardian of the Person and Estate of Rayshawn Warren, filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Mississippi County, Arkansas.1 She sued Officer Doyne Driskill (in both his individual and official capacities), Blytheville Chief of Police Ross Thompson (in both his individual and official capacities), and the City of Blytheville, Arkansas.2 In short, Ms. Anderson's Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Mr. Warren's First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, and that Officer Driskill committed the common law state torts of assault and battery.3
On November 29, 2018, Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of Arkansas.4 A lot has happened since that time. A fairly comprehensive procedural history can be read (and should be read) in the Court's relatively recent Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint.5 It's important to note here, however, that Officer Driskill, Chief Thompson, and the City of Blytheville are the only Defendants named in the Complaint. Other officers and paramedics involved in Mr. Warren's arrest and transport are not named as Defendants.6
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is now before the Court. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ evidence, briefing, and oral arguments. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted in its entirety.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."7 The movant bears the initial burden of showing (1) the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact and (2) that a rational juror could not possibly find for the nonmoving party based on the undisputed facts.8 If the movant successfully makes this showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that there is some genuine and material issue to be determined at trial.9 The nonmoving party may not rest solely upon the allegations in its pleadings.10 To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must demonstrate the existence of specific facts ... supported by ‘sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in her favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.’ "11 If the nonmoving party can present specific facts by "affidavit, deposition, or otherwise, showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial," then summary judgment is not appropriate.12
Of course, the mere existence of a disputed fact will not bar summary judgment.13 The dispute must be genuine, which means the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to decide the particular question of fact for either party.14 And the disputed fact must be material, meaning the resolution of the dispute will be outcome determinative under the controlling law.15 The Court will resolve all genuine issues of material fact in the non-moving party's favor.16 But the Court will not adopt a version of the facts that is blatantly contradicted by the record such that no rational juror could believe it.17
The events in question occurred in Blytheville, Arkansas, between 7:59 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on September 29, 2018. It was well after sunset and dark outside. At approximately 7:59 p.m., Officer Driskill of the Blytheville Police Department responded to a call about an unknown man at 910 Hearn Street trying to "snatch the door open."18 Officer Driskill spoke with the resident of 910 Hearn Street, who explained that the encounter with the unknown man "was scary" and that the man's "eyes were big," as if the man "was on something."19 The resident described the man as a black male wearing a blue shirt.20 Officer Driskill searched around the outside of the house but did not find the man.
While Officer Driskill was still at 910 Hearn Street, dispatch received several calls concerning a man matching the same general description knocking on doors on Walnut Street.21 Officer Driskill left Hearn Street and made contact with a caller on Walnut Street.22 The caller stated that a man was knocking on doors and asking for help.23 The caller directed Officer Driskill toward 8th Street, which is where the man was last seen.24 En route, Officer Driskill received yet another call from dispatch that seemed to involve the unknown male.25 This time, dispatch relayed information about a man who was screaming for help behind a Baptist Church.26 There is a Baptist Church on the corner of 8th Street and Walnut Street.27
Officer Driskill located a man fitting the given description at approximately 8:08 p.m. at the southeast corner of Main Street and 7th Street.28 The man was 29-year-old Rayshawn Warren. As it turns out, Mr. Warren suffered from a history of bipolar disorder
.29 He also had a documented history of drug use and meth abuse.30 Indeed, on the night in question, Mr. Warren tested positive for amphetamines.31
Officer Driskill attempted to approach Mr. Warren saying, "what's going on, man," and "come here."32 Mr. Warren responded "no."33 Officer Driskill told Mr. Warren two more times to "come here."34 Once again, Mr. Warren responded "no" and then started running down Main Street.35 Officer Driskill pursued Mr. Warren.36 At approximately 8:08 p.m., Officer Driskill made physical contact with Mr. Warren.37 Roughly twenty-three minutes later, two other officers determined that Mr. Warren did not have a pulse and began CPR.38 Mr. Warren never regained consciousness; he spent the remainder of his life in a vegetative state until he died. What happened during those twenty-three minutes, and specifically whether Officer Driskill's conduct was reasonable, are the primary questions underpinning Ms. Anderson's Complaint and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court will walk step-by-step through the events that transpired during the arrest on the night of September 29, 2018.39 For the most part, the facts will be derived from the bodycam videos belonging to Officers Berumen, Krupin, and Driskill.40 When a fact is genuinely disputed, the Court will adopt the version of the genuinely disputed fact that is most favorable to Plaintiff.
At 8:08:46 p.m., Officer Driskill made physical contact with Mr. Warren.41 The parties agree that during this brief initial altercation, Officer Driskill attempted to perform an armbar on Mr. Warren.42 Mr. Warren was facing Officer Driskill when contact was made.43 Mr. Warren put both of his arms out in front of his body and towards the chest or head of Officer Driskill.44 This was not done in a particularly violent manner. Rather, Mr. Warren simply appeared to be creating a buffer between himself and Officer Driskill.
Officer Driskill and Mr. Warren scuffled for approximately 2 seconds before Mr. Warren prevailed in pushing Officer Driskill to the ground and breaking free of Officer Driskill's grasp.45 At 8:08:48 p.m., Mr. Warren's legs can be seen as Officer Driskill falls backwards to the ground.46 As Officer Driskill fell, he lost physical contact with Mr. Warren, and Mr. Warren again took flight. At 8:08:50 p.m., Officer Driskill got back up and resumed pursuit.47
For the next eighteen seconds, Mr. Warren eluded Officer Driskill.48 Occasionally, Officer Driskill would instruct Mr. Warren to "come here" or to "get on the ground."49 Mr. Warren did not heed Officer Driskill's commands. At 8:09:08 p.m., Officer Driskill again made physical contact with Mr. Warren.50 This time, Officer Driskill threw Mr. Warren to the ground.51
Mr. Warren landed on his back on a patch of grass near to, but off of, a public road. One second later, Officer Driskill mounted Mr. Warren, and the two lightly wrestled for hand control.52 At 8:09:15 p.m., Officer Driskill gained control of both of Mr. Warren's wrists.53 By 8:09:18 p.m., Officer Driskill had both of Mr. Warren's arms pinned to the ground near Mr. Warren's head.54 Officer Driskill was sitting on Mr. Warren's stomach, straddling him.55 Mr. Warren repeatedly yelled, "momma."56
From 8:09:18 p.m. until 8:10:28 p.m., Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. Gittemeier
...that Defendants insisted on a clear view of the cell to secure Plaintiff under these circumstances. See Anderson v. Driskill, 550 F.Supp.3d 596, 631-32 (E.D. Ark. 2021), appeal dismissed, No. 21-2923, 2021 WL 7160572 (8th Cir. Oct. 18, 2021) (“Because Officer Driskill's conduct was justifie......
-
Mick v. Gibbons
... ... See ... Hassan v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 489 F.3d 914, 919 ... (8th Cir. 2007); see also Anderson v. Driskill, 550 ... F.Supp.3d 596, 618 n.203 (E.D. Ark., July 26, 2021). What is ... relevant in determining reasonableness is the ... ...