Blount v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 01 September 2021
• Docket Number: 4:15-CV-322 DDN
• Parties: JAMES P. BLOUNT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

JAMES P. BLOUNT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:15-CV-322 DDN

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM

DAVID D. NOCE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on defendants Albert Napier Zachary Nicolay, and Matthew Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment, and defendants Brent Fincher, Ryan Strittmatter John Vogt, Terrence Howard, and Scott Aubuchon's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 211, 213.) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

In 2015, plaintiff James Blount filed this suit against various defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law violations after an incident on January 20, 2013, at Lumiere Place Casino and Hotels in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff's original petition included claims against the City of St. Louis, the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”), Hudson Services, Lumiere Casino, and several individual officers of the SLMPD. After various dismissals by plaintiff voluntarily and by the Court, and amended complaints, the following defendants and claims asserted in plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint remain:

(1) Deliberate indifference to and deprivation of plaintiff's medical needs in violation of plaintiff's Constitutional rights against defendants Aubuchon, Fincher, Howard, Miller, Napier, Nicolay, Strittmatter, and Vogt in their individual capacities;

(2) Excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendant Miller in his individual capacity;

(3) Failure to intercede in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution against defendants Aubuchon, Fincher, Howard, Miller, Napier, Nicolay, Strittmatter, and Vogt in their individual and official capacities;

(4) False imprisonment in violation of Missouri law against defendants Howard, Miller, Napier, and Nicolay in their individual capacities;

(5) False imprisonment and injurious falsehood in violation of Missouri law against defendants Howard, Miller, Napier, and Nicolay in their individual capacities;

(6) Violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights to access the courts and/or petition the government against defendants Aubuchon, Fincher, Howard, Miller, Napier, Nicolay, Strittmatter, and Vogt; and

(7) Fraud and conspiracy to commit a civil tort of fraud, false imprisonment, and injurious falsehood against defendants Howard, Miller, Napier, and Nicolay in their individual capacities.

(Doc. 144.)

B. Undisputed Facts

On January 20, 2013, plaintiff and a third party, Steven C., were involved in an altercation outside of Lumiere Casino. The security video shows a man hit plaintiff and plaintiff immediately struck back. Plaintiff had ingested alcoholic beverages at the casino. Off-duty police officers Keith Major, Nicholas Shelton, Erich VonNida, and Ezell Cody, Jr. were working secondary employment for Hudson Security at the Casino. Officer Major reported plaintiff punched Steven C. in the face with his fist so the officers moved to detain plaintiff and arrest him for assault. The off-duty officers then used force against plaintiff. Officer VonNida ordered Lumiere security to respond with an EMT and advised them to contact St. Louis City EMS for plaintiff's injuries. After video surveillance revealed Steven C. had struck plaintiff first, the officers also placed Steven C. in handcuffs and advised him he was under arrest for third-degree assault. After the use of force by the officers, plaintiff complained of right hip, head, neck, and back pain.^[1]

i. Sergeant Albert Napier

In 2013, Albert Napier was a sergeant working in the Fourth District supervising uniform personnel. His shift was from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. On January 20, he turned his watch over to Sergeant Lucinda Miller. Sergeant Napier was dispatched to the Casino because the off-duty officers at the Casino had an arrest. By the time Sergeant Napier arrived, the use of force by the off-duty officers had ended. Sergeant Napier was the scene supervisor for the incident. The four off-duty officers were not under Sergeant Napier's command in the Fourth District because they were not Fourth District officers. At the scene, the primary investigating officer was Officer Major. Sergeant Napier had no discussion with plaintiff at the scene, or later, but he did review a security video of the use of force incident when he arrived.

EMS arrived on the scene at the same time as Sergeant Napier. Once they arrived, plaintiff's medical treatment shifted to EMS. The EMS report notes that it took an extended amount of time for the ambulance to leave the scene because they were waiting for a police escort. When an ambulance is on scene for more than 15 minutes, a reason is given in the report. Someone on scene told the EMT that plaintiff was told to leave the Casino and he started resisting. No one informed the EMT that plaintiff had been the victim of an assault.

Sergeant Napier considered plaintiff a prisoner from the moment he was placed under arrest. Officers Nicolay and Miller, both under Sergeant Napier's command in the Fourth District, reported to the scene. Sergeant Napier told Officer Miller to ride in the ambulance with plaintiff and for Officer Nicolay to follow in a marked police car. Sergeant Napier did not go to the hospital.

ii. Zachary Nicolay

Officer Nicolay has been assigned to the Fourth District for over ten years. On January 20, Officer Nicolay had been an officer for approximately six years, receiving his training in the police academy. When Officer Nicolay arrived at the Casino, the use of force by the off-duty officers had ended and plaintiff was either on a stretcher being put into the ambulance or already in the ambulance. While Officer Miller rode in the ambulance, Officer Nicolay drove a marked police car behind the ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance pulled over. Officer Nicolay pulled up behind and walked up to the ambulance and was told they were good, so he went back to his car and continued following. Officer Nicolay does not remember Officer Miller telling him at any time that plaintiff was combative with him while in the ambulance.

Once at the hospital, plaintiff was taken into the emergency room and treated by doctors. Officer Nicolay parked in the police parking next to the ambulance bay and walked up to the ambulance. Officers Nicolay and Miller were together at the hospital until relieved at 7:00 a.m., the end of their shift. Officer Nicolay did not do any type of police assistance with plaintiff at the hospital. He did not have to restrain plaintiff nor did he see Officer Miller take any action to restrain plaintiff. After Officers Nicolay and Miller were relieved, they had no other involvement with plaintiff. They did not convey him to the Justice Center.

iii. Matthew Miller

Officer Miller is a police officer assigned to the Fourth District. He was trained at the police academy. Officer Miller did not write the incident report because writing the report was not assigned to him, and he did not review the report until this litigation. He also did not take any notes in this particular case. Officer Miller did not speak with the author of the report, Officer Major.

Sergeant Napier assigned Officer Miller to convey plaintiff to the hospital. He was not at the Casino at the time of the initial incident and he never spoke with plaintiff about what occurred at the Casino.^[2] Someone told Officer Miller police officers used force because there was an assault and plaintiff resisted arrest.

While in the ambulance, the EMT tended to plaintiff, who was wearing handcuffs. One EMT was in the back of the ambulance with Officer Miller and plaintiff, while another EMS person drove the ambulance. While in the ambulance, plaintiff became agitated and combative.^[3] The EMT tried to put plaintiff in a certain position that was causing plaintiff severe pain. Plaintiff's major complaint was leg pain. The EMT reported plaintiff rated his pain as 10/10. While in the ambulance, the EMT did not know plaintiff's femur was dislocated outside of his hip socket. The EMT tried to put an IV in plaintiff and roll him over, but plaintiff began swinging his arm and flailing around. Plaintiff attempted to get into a different position on his left side but the EMT believed it would cause him further injury and that it was not feasible due to plaintiff's aggressive behavior. Plaintiff was removing medical equipment and the EMT could not take his vitals because of his “irate behavior.” According to Officer Miller, this required him to assist in restraining plaintiff, although Officer Miller does not recall being asked by the EMT to do so.

When plaintiff was initially put in the ambulance, one of his arms was left unhandcuffed so the EMT could properly treat him by administering an IV. After plaintiff's movement prevented the EMT from treating him, Officer Miller handcuffed his free arm. The EMT reported “restraints were done in due regard to patient and for safety of EMS individual.” Plaintiff continued to swear at the EMT and Officer Miller, but did not say, “I'm going to kill you guys, ” “screw you, cops” or any such language. At some point the ambulance pulled over and stopped. Officer Miller did not tell the ambulance driver to stop.

The parties dispute what occurred when Officer Miller secured plaintiff's free arm. According to Officer Miller, he grabbed plaintiff's arm, placed...