Barney v. Suggs
| Decision Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-01087-TNM |
| Parties | WILLIAM BURNEY, Plaintiff, v. PHILLIP SUGGS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
William Burney has sued the District of Columbia and two of its police officers[1](collectively, Defendants) for alleged misconduct during an interaction at his apartment. Burney brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officers Roberto Adams and Lance Bishop, alleging that they falsely arrested and used excessive force against him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. See Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1-2. Burney also brings common law claims of false arrest, assault, and battery against Adams and Bishop, and seeks to hold the District vicariously liable for their torts. See Compl. at 4-5.
The officers now move for summary judgment on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity and on the common law claims based on the existence of probable cause and qualified privilege. See Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J (Defs.' MSJ) at 5, 19-20, ECF No. 34. The District also moves for summary judgment, contending that it is not vicariously liable because its employee- officers are not liable for the underlying torts of false arrest, assault, and battery. See id. at 2021. In support of their motion, Defendants submitted body-worn camera (BWC) footage from Officer Adams and deposition transcripts from various officers on the scene. See SUMF ¶ 4 n.1; Defs.' MSJ, Exs. 2-8.
Based on the evidence, no reasonable jury could find that the officers violated Burney's Fourth Amendment rights by falsely arresting him or by using excessive force against him. So the Court finds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity and will grant the officers summary judgment on these claims. And because the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burney's common law claims, it will grant the officers summary judgment on these claims too because the officers had probable cause to arrest Burney and their use of force was privileged. The Court will also grant the District summary judgment on Burney's vicarious liability claim because its employee-officers are not liable for the underlying common law torts.
According to Burney's Complaint, officers came to his apartment on an early March morning and falsely arrested him. Compl. ¶ 7. Burney claims that when the officers came to his apartment, he tried to open his front door but did not have the key to the deadbolt. Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (Opp'n) at 3, ECF No. 36. He also claims that when he went to the rear of the apartment, an officer “tried to bull rush his way” into Burney's residence. See Id. Burney next alleges that the officers grabbed and searched him without his consent. Compl. ¶ 7. More, he claims that the officers subjected him to excessive force, injuring his arm, leg hands, and shoulder. Id. ¶ 10; Opp'n at 4. Burney also alleges that he experienced pain and suffering from his encounter with the officers. Compl. ¶ 10. He states that he was “shocked” by the encounter because he had “not been resisting or refusing to cooperate with the police.” Opp'n at
3. Burney then reports that the officers kept him in handcuffs for more than 45 minutes, after which he went to the hospital. See id. at 4.
There are two problems with Burney's version of the story. First, though Burney describes various facts in his Opposition, he does not directly dispute Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUMF) in his Statement of Material Facts (SMF). Compare SUMF, ECF No. 34, with SMF, ECF No. 36. For example Defendants assert that Burney was only in cuffs for 20 to 40 minutes. SUMF ¶ 20. Burney counters that he was in cuffs for longer than 45 minutes, see Opp'n at 4, but he does not reference this fact in his SMF. See SMF ¶¶ 1-4. Indeed, Burney disputes only four facts in his SMF: (1) that the officers had reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime; (2) that he posed a danger to his family or to the officers on the scene; (3) that he resisted the officers or tried to flee; and (4) that the force used by Officers Adams and Bishop was excessive. See SMF ¶¶ 1-4. Thus, the Court considers all other facts in Defendants' SUMF as admitted. See LCvR 7(h)(1); see also SEC v. Banner Fund Int'l, 211 F.3d 602, 616 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
The second problem for Burney is Officer Adams' body-worn camera footage. See Defs.' MSJ, Ex. 6 (BWC). It flatly contradicts Burney's presentation of the facts. According to Defendants' SUMF and the footage, the story is as follows.
In the early hours of March 31, 2020, a grandmother made a frightening call to 911. SUMF ¶ 1, 3. She reported that someone under the influence of the drug Phencyclidine (PCP) was holding her and some children hostage inside a residence. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3. She explained that she was “locked inside the room” with the children and was afraid. Id. The grandmother also noted that the individual was “speaking in tongues.” Id.
Several MPD officers drove to Burney's apartment after receiving the call. SUMF ¶ 1. When the officers arrived, one knocked loudly on the front door of the apartment and shouted “police, open the door.” Id. ¶ 5; BWC 2:47-3:35. The officer continued to knock and shout, but no one answered. Id. A neighbor across the hall came outside to speak to the officers. Id. ¶ 6; BWC 3:07-3:37. She reported hearing noise from a disturbance earlier that morning, which was loud enough to shake her cabinets. Id. The neighbor said that the noise was unusual. Id. The officers then asked this neighbor if they could walk through her apartment to access the rear of the apartment building. BWC 3:34-4:08. She consented, and the officers moved through her apartment, exiting through the back door. Id.; SUMF ¶ 7.
An officer then knocked loudly on the back door of Burney's apartment. BWC 4:255:13. He shouted, “Police, open the door!” Id. Again, no one answered. Id. Another officer then moved around to the side of the apartment building and began knocking on a window. Id. at 5:36-5:57. This officer called out, “hey, just trying to see if you're okay” as she knocked. Id. at 7:30-7:36. The officer who had been knocking on the back door then moved to a different window with a protruding air conditioning unit. Id. at 8:20-8:47. He yelled again: “Police, come open the door!” Id.
Suddenly, several voices from within the window responded, “We can't.” Id. at 8:498:52. The officer asked why, to which the voices exclaimed, “We can't get out!” Id. at 8:529:30. They also stated that they could not open the back door because “He's in there somewhere.” Id. The officer asked where the man was. Id. at 9:42-9:59. A woman responded, “in the hall.” Id. Then, someone inside the apartment began yanking the window air conditioning unit inward. Id. And the officer prepared to climb through the hole left by the air conditioning unit. Id. at 10:05-10:26.
Just as he was about to climb through the window, the officer turned and noticed Burney coming around the back of the residence. SUMF ¶ 10; BWC 10:16-10:28. Burney stopped and stared at the officer. BWC 10:16-10:28. Then he retreated. Id.; SUMF ¶ 11. As Burney moved toward the back door, the officer followed him, saying, “What's up boss? . . . Where'd you come from?” BWC 10:25-10:39. Burney responded that he lives in the apartment and that he was just inside. Id. He said that “nothing is going on” and that the officers “can't just come and go” as they were. Id. Throughout the exchange, Burney backed away from the officer into the apartment, and thus toward the apparent hostages. Id. At that time, the officer called for backup. Id. at 10:39-10:43. Burney then said, “excuse me, you don't” and tried to pull the door closed on the officer. Id.
But the officer held the door open. Id. He then told Burney to “calm down” and to “relax” multiple times. Id. at 10:43-10:57. He asked Burney to step outside so they could talk. Id. Burney began speaking very quickly. Id. Burney said, “You can't just walk in” while continuing to back away from the officer into the apartment. Id. As the officer followed him, Burney began resisting. Id. The officer repeatedly asked him to step outside, after which Burney said, “You can't do that.” Id. The officer responded, “Yes we can,” and continued to ask Burney to step outside. Id. at 10:57-11:02. Burney responded that he had to be at work and continued to resist. Id. By now, several other officers had joined them. Id. Burney continued to tell the officers to “hold on, hold on, hold on” and they kept telling him to “calm down.” Id. Then, an officer told Burney to put his hands behind his back. Id. At that point, two other officers moved in to assist and they asked Burney to step outside. Id. at 11:03-11:06. Again, Burney told them to “hold on.” Id.
Next, an officer executed a takedown maneuver on Burney. Id. at 11:03-11:10; SUMF ¶ 15. He did so because Burney did not comply with the order to step outside, and he did not want Burney to retreat into the apartment from which women and children had been trying to escape through a window. SUMF ¶ 15; BWC 10:39-11:06. The bodycam footage shows that Burney was on the ground for less than a minute. BWC 11:05-11:55; SUMF ¶ 17. During that time, Burney continued to shout at the officers, telling them to “hold on!” BWC 11:05-11:55. After handcuffing Burney, the officers repeatedly asked him to sit down at a table outside the apartment. Id. at 12:05-13:58. Burney again did not comply. Id. So the officers sat him up. SUMF ¶ 18. A paramedic then offered Burney medical attention. BWC 13:50-14:05.
Some officers moved into the apartment to question the inhabitants-including the grandmother who called 911, some children, and Burney's...
To continue reading
Request your trial