Brewer v. City of Daphne
| Decision Date | 28 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 97-0159-S.,Civ.A. 97-0159-S. |
| Citation | 111 F.Supp.2d 1299 |
| Parties | Cherry L. BREWER, et al., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DAPHNE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
In this prison suicide case, Plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and Alabama Code § 6-5-410.1 The action presently is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25), Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32), Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition (Doc. 35), Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 36), Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Strike (Doc. 39), and Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Strike (Doc. 40). The undersigned has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Upon consideration of the pleadings, briefs and evidentiary submissions, this Court concludes that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted with regard to Plaintiff's federal claims, and, with regard to Plaintiff's state law wrongful death claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
This action is brought by the mother of the deceased, Brian Scott Hobbs (hereinafter "Hobbs"). On May 1, 1995, after his conviction in the Daphne Municipal Court, Hobbs was admitted to the Daphne City Jail to serve an eighteen-month sentence for driving under the influence and speeding. On June 30, 1995, more than a month into his sentence and while on work release at the Daphne Animal Shelter, the results of an intoxilyzer test revealed Hobbs had a blood alcohol content of .130%. Hobbs was found dead in his cell later that day. Medical records indicate that he died as a result of suicide from asphyxiation caused by hanging.
The Defendants in this lawsuit are the City of Daphne, Alabama; Harry Brown, Mayor of Daphne, Alabama; and Joseph Hall, the Chief of Police for the City of Daphne, Alabama. Defendants Brown and Hall are sued in their individual capacities only.2 In Count I of the complaint, plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of Hobbs' Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff contends that the Defendants acted with "deliberate and callous indifference to the serious medical needs of Brian Scott Hobbs" when the decedent was left "unattended without necessary and appropriate medical or mental health measures required to protect him from [his] suicidal propensities." Compl. ¶¶ 12, 16. In Count II of the complaint, Plaintiff complains that Hobbs' death is the result of Defendants' policy, custom, supervisory authority, and ratification of the "unconstitutional conduct of offending employees" and their failure to train, "investigate and punish or reprimand those responsible for unconstitutional conduct...." Compl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff avers that said failures "demonstrate a policy and custom of deliberate indifference." Id.
Counts III and IV of the complaint state a claim for relief under Alabama's wrongful death statute. Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages under Alabama law for Hobbs' pain and suffering, which allegedly resulted from the wantonness and negligence of the Defendants in caring for inmate Hobbs. Additionally, in Count IV of the complaint, Plaintiff makes a claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief.3
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 vests the court with federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims by way of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Summary judgment is proper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)
"if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." ... [T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, ..., against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The movant bears the initial responsibility of asserting the basis for his motion. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; Apcoa, Inc. v. Fidelity Nat'l Bank, 906 F.2d 610, 611 (11th Cir.1990). However, the movant is not required to negate his opponent's claim. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. The movant may discharge his burden by merely "`showing' — that is, pointing out to the [d]istrict [c]ourt — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2554.
After the movant has carried his burden, the nonmoving party is then required to "go beyond the pleadings" and present competent evidence designating "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. While the Court is to view the evidence produced and all factual inferences rising from it in a light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir.1989), "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original).
If the nonmoving party's "response consists of nothing more than a repetition of his conclusory allegations, the district court must enter summary judgment in the moving party's favor." Barfield, 883 F.2d at 934. A fact is material when it is identified by the controlling substantive law as an essential element of the nonmoving party's case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.
An issue is not genuine if it is unsupported by evidence or if it is created by evidence that is "merely colorable" or is "not significantly probative." Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. Thus, to survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific evidence so as to create a genuine issue for trial.
The Eleventh Circuit has explained that, [f]acts in dispute cease to be "material" facts when the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case. "In such a situation, there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." [Citations omitted]. Thus, under such circumstances, the public official is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, because the plaintiff has failed to carry the burden of proof. This rule facilitates the dismissal of factually unsupported claims prior to trial.
Bennett v. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530, 1532 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1103, 111 S.Ct. 1003, 112 L.Ed.2d 1085 (1991).
After reviewing Defendants' summary judgment motion, and in consideration of Plaintiff's legally insufficient opposition thereto, the undersigned is of the opinion that summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal claims should be granted in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to show that "there [is] a substantial conflict in evidence to support a jury question" on the issue. Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1526 (11th Cir.1997), quoting Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir.1989). With regard to Plaintiff's state law wrongful death claim, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.
In granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's federal claims and in declining to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law wrongful death claim, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
When the record is examined as a whole, not meted out in sound bites, it
reveals that the facts pertinent to Defendants' motion for summary judgment are undisputed by the parties, despite Plaintiff's questionable attempts to create questions of fact where there are none. Nonetheless, as a threshold matter, in considering a motion for summary judgment the Court "view[s] the evidence and all inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1163, n. 4 (11th Cir.1995). Thus, to the extent that there is any discrepancy in the record, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the nonmovant.
On March 13, 1995, Daphne Police Officer Ken Weed stopped Hobbs for speeding on Highway 98 in Daphne.5 While talking with Hobbs, Officer Weed detected an odor of alcohol and thereafter requested that Hobbs demonstrate several field sobriety tests.6 Hobbs failed each test.7 Hobbs was arrested, given a blood alcohol content test, and charged with driving under the influence after the test revealed an alcohol blood content at a level of .160%.8 Officer Weed transported Hobbs to the Daphne City Jail in Daphne, Alabama.9 While being admitted to the jail, Hobbs was required to complete the jail's standard admission intake forms.10 When Hobbs filled out the forms, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. City of Atmore
...and would not alert the jail authorities to a strong likelihood that [the decedent] would commit suicide."); Brewer v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1317 (S.D.Ala.1999)(as a matter of law, intoxication and addiction do not show a strong likelihood that a detainee will commit In Popham......
-
Bozeman v. Orum, Civ.A. 00-T-1368-N.
...These unsworn statements do not meet the requirements for an affidavit that may be considered under Rule 54(c). Brewer v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1303 (S.D.Ala.1999) (finding that inmate statements contained in an Alabama Bureau of Investigation report were not competent evidenc......
-
Weaver v. James Bonding Co., Inc.
...outweigh these circumstances, the plaintiffs' state law claims ... will be dismissed without prejudice."); Brewer v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1320 (S.D.Ala. 1999) (Steele, M.J.) (upon dismissing federal claim on summary judgment, "[t]he Court declines supplemental jurisdiction of......
-
Russell v. City of Anniston
...order that inmate was mentally ill and posed a threat of substantial harm to himself and to others).Brewer v. City of Daphne, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1315-16 (S.D. Ala. 1999) (Steele, J.) (emphasis added). First, there is no evidence that any assessment of Mr. Russell's mental health during t......
-
U.S. District Court: MENTAL HEALTH.
...v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D.Ala. 1999). The mother of a jail inmate who committed suicide brought a civil rights action against a city and city officials, alleging they failed to provide adequate psychological care to the inmate prior to his suicide and failed to protect him ......
-
U.S. District Court: FAILURE TO TRAIN.
...v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D.Ala. 1999). The mother of a jail inmate who committed suicide brought a civil rights action against a city and city officials, alleging they failed to provide adequate psychological care to the inmate prior to his suicide and failed to protect him ......
-
U.S. District Court: PRISONER SUICIDE.
...v. City of Daphne, 111 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D.Ala. 1999). The mother of a jail inmate who committed suicide brought a civil rights action against a city and city officials, alleging they failed to provide adequate psychological care to the inmate prior to his suicide and failed to protect him ......