Benson v. Geiger
| Decision Date | 20 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-865-JD |
| Parties | CHARLES A. BENSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GEIGER, JOHN DRUMMER, GEOFFREY NORTON, CARY YOUNG, PAUL A. SHRAWDER, and SHANNON HUGHES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Charles A. Benson, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case against six defendants. "[A]gainst John Drummer and Robert Geiger in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive force against him on January [30],1 2016, in violation of the Fourth Amendment . . .." ECF 13 at 4. "[A]gainst Geoffrey Norton in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to protect him from John Drummer and Robert Geiger on January [30], 2016, in violation of the Fourth Amendment . . .." Id. "[A]gainst Cary Young, Paul A. Shrawder, and Shannon Hughes in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him medical treatment for more than five hours on January [30], 2016, in violation of the Fourth Amendment . . .." Id.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF 157. Benson filed a response. ECF 170. The Defendants filed a reply. ECF 173. Benson filed a sur-reply which the Defendants moved to strike. ECF 176 and 177. Benson filed a response to the motion to strike and the Defendants filed a reply. ECF 178 and 179. These matters are now ripe.
Summary judgment must be granted when "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). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). However, a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading, but rather must "marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will prove her case." Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment "is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit . . .." Springer v. Durfiinger, 518 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2008).
In the summary judgment motion, defendants Robert Geiger and John Drummer deny they used excessive force against Charles Benson in violation of the Fourth Amendment.2 ECF 158 at 2. The question in Fourth Amendment excessive use of force cases is "whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). "The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). Rather, the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances" justifies the officers' actions. Graham at 396. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the perfect vision of hindsight. "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," violates the Fourth Amendment. Id.
There are a number of events which occurred before Benson was handcuffed on the ground. However, none of them are relevant to this excessive use of force claim which is alleged to have occurred after he was handcuffed on the ground. It is undisputed that Officer Drummer "immediately handcuffed . . . Charles Benson when he arrived on the scene." Drummer Affidavit, ECF 157-2 at 2, see also Benson Deposition,ECF 168 at 24. It is also undisputed Drummer Drummer Affidavit, ECF 157-2 at 2, see also Benson Deposition, ECF 168 at 25.
It is at this point the parties disagree about what happened next. Geiger denies kicking Benson. Geiger Affidavit, ECF 157-1 at 5. Drummer denies putting his foot on Benson's neck. Drummer Interrogatory Answer, ECF 170-4 at 21. Drummer affirms Benson "kept trying to get up and I restrained him by holding him down on the ground." Drummer Affidavit, ECF 157-2 at 3. Benson describes events after he was handcuffed quite differently. Benson declares under penalty of perjury that, "[o]n January 30, 2016, after Officer John Drummer and Robert Geiger placed me in handcuffs not at any point an time did I ever resist an officer(s) not once." Benson Declaration, ECF 170-4 at 91.
After being searched by Ofc. Drummer by pulling my pants down to my knees or ankles to see if I was shot, I was then laying on my stomach and there was a brief moments pause, then that's when John Drummer placed his foot on the back of my neck. That's when I instantly and as well simultaneously started getting kicked in my face from my right side I then started to yell and pain per kick and as I tried turning my face to the left to avoid the kicks which at that point, Ofc. Drummer applied more force with his foot pressed against my neck causing me to say repeatedly and continuously say and yell, I CAN'T BREATHE, I CAN'T BREATHE.
Benson Declaration, ECF 170-4 at 91-92. ECF 170-2 at 2. This is the only instance of excessive force at issue in this case.
During his deposition, Benson testified that, "I was on the ground and in handcuffs, and . . . somebody pulled my pants down, you know, because I think I told them I got shot [and] they pulled my pants back up, told me to turn back over . . . and before I know it an officer put a - put their foot on the back of my neck, and somebody started kicking me, from my right side, in my face and my nose." Benson Deposition, ECF 168 at 24-26. Because of the contradictory statements by the parties, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the excessive use of force claims which cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
Geiger and Drummer argue they can use necessary force to effectuate an arrest. ECF 158 at 3. That is true. See Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 944 (7th Cir. 2016). However, they are accused of using excessive force after Benson was handcuffed, on the ground, and not resisting. The factual dispute about what happened immediately after Benson was handcuffed must be resolved by a jury, not on summary judgment.
Geiger and Drummer argue the paramedic records at the scene did not record any facial injuries. See ECF 157-10 at 4. However, they acknowledge another medic in a later examination noted "some swelling and redness to the bridge of his nose." ECF 157-10 at 8. They do not mention a facial CT scan taken that evening showed "a definite nasal bone fracture." ECF 170-4 at 79. Rather, they argue video shows Benson did not mention a facial injury even though he mentions other medical concerns when he was twice examined by paramedics immediately after he was arrested. See Jenkins Body Camera, ECF 161, exhibit L; and Hughes Backseat Camera, ECF 161, exhibit F. Theyargue the videos and booking photos do not show any facial injuries. See id.; Benson Interview Video, ECF 161, exhibit M; and booking photos, ECF 157-11 at 3-5.
When "the evidence includes a videotape of the relevant events, the Court should not adopt the nonmoving party's version of the events when that version is blatantly contradicted by the videotape." Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2016) citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379-80 (2007). However, none of the videos filed in this case show the moments immediately after Benson was handcuffed during which he alleges he was assaulted. Thus, they do not blatantly contradict Benson's claim he was held down and kicked in the face. Rather, as the defendants accurately note, the videos make the "claim he was kicked in the face . . . quite suspect." ECF 158 at 7. That is an argument properly presented to a jury. It is not appropriate on summary judgment.
Geiger and Drummer argue the excessive force claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because "Mr. Benson cannot contradict his state court conviction of Resisting Law Enforcement and the facts set forth by the Indiana Court of Appeals." ECF 158 at 9.
In Evans v. Poskon, 603 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2010), [the court] addressed the ability of a plaintiff to proceed on a § 1983 excessive force claim where that plaintiff had been convicted of resisting arrest, and held that the plaintiff can only proceed to the extent that the facts underlying the excessive force claim are not inconsistent with the essential facts supporting the conviction.
Helman v. Duhaime, 742 F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir. 2014). Here, the facts underlying the excessive force claim are that after Benson was passively handcuffed on the ground,Drummer pressed his foot on Benson's neck while Geiger kicked him in the face. The essential facts related to the Resisting conviction are not explained by the Court of Appeals of Indiana. However, since the opinion omits any reference to events after Benson was handcuffed,3 there is no indication what occurred after that was relevant to any of his convictions. Moreover, the Information charging Benson with Resisting states:
Charles A. Benson,...
To continue reading
Request your trial