Blackmore v. Carlson
| Decision Date | 01 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:21-cv-00026-DN-PK |
| Citation | 574 F.Supp.3d 1012 |
| Parties | Vincent BLACKMORE; and Danyale Blackmore, Plaintiffs, v. Jared CARLSON and Eric Demille, Hurricane City Police Officers; Deputy Ramirez; and Doe Deputies 1-4; Washington County, by and through its Sheriff's Office ; and Hurricane City, by and through its Police Department, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Robert B. Sykes, Christina Dawn Isom, Christopher Peter Sorensen, Sykes Mcallister Law Offices, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs.
Gregory N. Hoole, Hoole & King LC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant Jared Carlson, Eric Demille, City of Hurricane.
Frank D. Mylar, Mylar Law PC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant FNU Ramirez, Washington County.
This civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involves an incident at a hotel that occurred in the early hours of the morning on January 6, 2020 (the "Incident").1 An intoxicated2 hotel guest broke the front door of the hotel and called 911 from the lobby, claiming to have left his key in his room and asking for assistance.3 Police officers arrived.4 The officers’ visit culminated with the arrest of one of the hotel owners.5
Plaintiffs Vincent Blackmore and Danyale Blackmore (the "Blackmores"), the hotel owners, filed a Complaint alleging violations of their constitutional rights against Officers Jared Carlson and Eric DeMille, Deputy Sheriff Ramirez, Washington County, and Hurricane City.6
Defendant Officers Jared Carlson and Eric DeMille, and Hurricane City ("Hurricane Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss ("Motion")7 the Blackmores’ Complaint based, in part, on the defense of qualified immunity. The Blackmores filed an opposition to the Motion ("Opposition")8 and the Hurricane Defendants filed a Reply.9 The Blackmores then filed a notice of supplemental authorities ("Notice"),10 and the Hurricane Defendants filed a Response to the Notice.11 12 After careful consideration of the pleadings, the parties’ memoranda, and the relevant legal authority, the Hurricane Defendants’ Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
"At the motion-to-dismiss stage, we must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."13 "To survive dismissal, ‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "14 "The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."15
"[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is a harsh remedy which must be cautiously studied, not only to effectuate the spirit of the liberal rules of pleading but also to protect the interests of justice."16 "It is also well established that dismissal of a complaint is proper only if it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim."17
"Although qualified immunity defenses are typically resolved at the summary judgment stage, district courts may grant motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity."18 "Asserting a qualified immunity defense via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion ... subjects the defendant to a more challenging standard of review than would apply on summary judgment."19 "In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in the context of qualified immunity, a district court should not dismiss a complaint ‘for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [the plaintiff's] claim which would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.’ "20
Defendant Officers Carlson and DeMille (the "Officers") were each wearing a body camera (the "Video")21 which recorded the Incident. The Blackmores reference (but do not attach or incorporate22 ) the Video in their Complaint.23 The Blackmores allege the Video evidence contradicts certain statements made by the Officers in the Video24 and contains evidence that the Probable Cause Statement filed by Officer Carlson has falsehoods and inaccuracies, effectively "prov[ing] the Officers acted illegally to seize Danyale and detain and arrest her."25
The Hurricane Defendants argue the Video should be considered alongside the Complaint because of the Complaint's references to the Video.26 The Hurricane Defendants argue that the allegations in the Complaint are "inaccurate and self-serving characterization[s]" that are disproved by the Video,27 so the Hurricane Defendants provide their own version28 of the facts based on the Video in their Motion.
"[When] evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts may consider not only the complaint itself, but also attached exhibits ... and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference."29 "[I]f a plaintiff does not incorporate by reference or attach a document to its complaint, but the document is referred to in the complaint and is central to the plaintiff's claim, a defendant may submit an indisputably authentic copy to the court to be considered on a motion to dismiss."30
The parties do not dispute the authenticity of the Video. The Video evidence is also clearly central to the Blackmores’ claims because their claims arise from the Incident depicted in the Video.
The Blackmores argue: (1) that consideration of the Video evidence is only allowed when it "incontrovertibly contradicts the allegations in the complaint";31 and (2) that the Hurricane Defendants’ version of the facts must be disregarded because the Hurricane Defendants have failed to show where the video evidence "viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, ‘blatantly,’ ‘clearly,’ or ‘incontrovertibly’ contradicts [Plaintiffs’] allegations."32
"[I]f a defendant attaches to a [Rule] 12(b)(6) motion materials referred to by the plaintiff and central to [the plaintiff's] claim, the court has discretion to consider such materials."33 Because the authenticity of the Video is not contested and it is central to the Blackmores’ claims, the Video will be considered along with the Blackmores’ Complaint.
The Blackmores’ assertion that the Hurricane Defendants’ version of the facts cannot usurp the allegations in the Complaint unless the Video clearly contradicts those allegations is supported by case law as discussed in the following section.
Because the Video does not clearly contradict the critical allegations in the Complaint, analysis is confined to the Hurricane Defendants’ conduct as alleged in the Complaint and as shown in the Video.
The Blackmores cite to Scott v. Harris34 to support their assertion that the Hurricane Defendants’ version of the facts may not usurp the Complaint's allegations unless the Video "blatantly contradicts" those allegations. In Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's denial of Officer Scott's motion for summary judgment because video evidence "blatantly contradicted" the plaintiff's version of the facts.35 The Supreme Court explained that while "courts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion,’ " which "usually means adopting ... the plaintiff's version of the facts" in qualified immunity cases, the available video evidence in this case "quite clearly contradict[ed] the version of the story told by [plaintiff]."36 The Supreme Court concluded that "[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."37
The Blackmores also cite to three unpublished Tenth Circuit decisions.38 In Estate of Ronquillo v. City and County of Denver ,39 the Tenth Circuit considered the District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss and stated, "we accept as true Plaintiff's allegations except when directly [contradicted] by the attached exhibits—in this case the video of the incident."40 The Tenth Circuit also cited to a Seventh Circuit case and included this quote in the citation's parenthetical: "When an exhibit incontrovertibly contradicts the allegations in the complaint, the exhibit ordinarily controls, even when considering a motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial