Brodanex v. Town of st. John

• Decision Date: 29 September 2022
• Docket Number: 2:17-CV-395-TLS
• Parties: LARRY BRODANEX, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF ST. JOHN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

LARRY BRODANEX, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF ST. JOHN, Defendant.

No. 2:17-CV-395-TLS

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

September 29, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff Larry Brodanex filed a one-count Complaint [ECF No. 5] against Defendant Town of St. John on October 6, 2017. The Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when 30 dogs and other items were seized from his dog training business pursuant to two search warrants. Following the close of discovery, the Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 77], which is fully briefed and ripe for ruling. Because the September 13 and 19, 2017 search warrants were supported by probable cause, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that 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). The movant may discharge this burden by “either: (1) showing that there is an absence of evidence supporting an essential element of the non-moving party's claim; or (2) presenting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party's claim.” Hummel v. St. Joseph Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 817 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). In response, the non-movant “must make a sufficient showing on every

1

element of his case on which he bears the burden of proof; if he fails to do so, there is no issue for trial.” Yeatts v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., 940 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. (citation omitted). A court's role “is not to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and inconsistencies, and decide whom to believe. The court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Facts that are outcome determinative under the applicable law are material for summary judgment purposes. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

MATERIAL FACTS

A. Investigation of the Plaintiff's Business by the Town of St. John

In August and September 2017, the Plaintiff operated a dog training business, “The Trauma Training Experience,” at 9620 Industrial Drive in St. John, Indiana. Ex. A at 5, ECF No. 78-2. On August 23, 2017, St. John Animal Control received a complaint about the Plaintiff's business. Ex. E at 107, ECF No. 78-7; Ex. F at 54, ECF No. 78-8. The complainant advised that the dogs were being shot at with blank guns, were being beaten with a training whip, and were being trained outdoors without fencing. Ex. E at 137; Ex. F at 48-49.^[1] St. John Animal Control Officer Jan Kalinowski visited the business on August 24, 2017, but was unable to make contact with the Plaintiff. Ex. F at 50-51. When she arrived, she could smell a strong odor of urine

2

emanating from the property. Id. at 52. She did not find any evidence of dog fighting on the property outside the facility. Id. at 51-52.

On August 25, 2017, ACO Kalinowski returned to the Plaintiff's business, and the Plaintiff voluntarily allowed her to enter the premises. Ex. A at 5; Ex. F at 55, 58; Ex. I at 11-13, ECF No. 78-11. The Plaintiff was setting up his kennel at the time and only had a few dogs. Ex. I at 12. The Plaintiff did not have a business license or rabies vaccination records for the dogs, which ACO Kalinowski told him were required by law. Ex. A at 5; Ex. I at 13. ACO Kalinowski observed a lot of feces and urine in the facility, which she asked the Plaintiff to clean up. Ex. F at 59. She observed one dog with wounds on its legs and that some of the dogs were in very small wire crates with no bottoms so that the dogs were standing on the wire flooring, which can cause deformities to their feet. Id. at 82-85. ACO Kalinowski was concerned that the dogs were not being properly cared for, although she did not feel there was an urgency to remove the dogs at that time. Id. at 59-60.

At ACO Kalinowski's request, Lake County Sheriff's Department Detective Michelle Dvorscak then visited the Plaintiff's business and, with the Plaintiff's permission, looked around inside. Ex. G at 12-13, ECF No. 78-9; Ex. F at 60-61. Detective Dvorscak observed a slat mill, which is equipment that may be used in connection with dog fighting. Ex. G at 13-14.^[2] She did not observe any obvious health problems with the six or seven dogs present, and she saw no evidence of dog fighting. Id. at 15, 17. However, she was concerned by a number of empty kennels with fresh shavings, which she would not expect to see in an unused kennel. Id. at 18-19.

3

She thought this suggested that the Plaintiff may have taken some dogs out and was expecting to bring them back. Id. at 19-20.

On September 11, 2017, ACO Kalinowski visited the Plaintiff's business again. Ex A at 5; see Ex. I at 25, 34. She knocked on the front and back doors, but no one answered. Ex. A at 5. She observed a strong smell of urine and feces. Ex. F at 86. At some point, the building owner, Gary Rassell, arrived. Ex. A at 5.^[3] Rassell also observed an obvious odor of dog feces from outside the building. Ex. F at 15-16. Rassell opened the building. Ex. A at 5. ACO Kalinowski observed some dogs that were too big for their crates and observed that it was very warm inside the building. Ex. F at 89-90. She called additional St. John officers to the scene, and Officer Stamate, Officer Widen, and Corporal Gardenhire responded. Ex. A at 4, 6; Ex. F at 102. From the parking lot, Officer Widen smelled a distinct odor of urine and feces. Ex. F at 103. At some point, the Plaintiff arrived on-scene. Ex. A at 4. St. John officers had already entered the building when he arrived. Ex. I at 35. When questioned by ACO Kalinowski, the Plaintiff stated that he had not yet obtained his business license. Ex. A at 6. When ACO Kalinowski asked the Plaintiff why the dogs were so thin, the Plaintiff responded that he had just gotten some of the dogs the day before from a friend who went to jail. Id. at 7.

ACO Kalinowski observed the conditions inside the Plaintiff's business on September 11, 2017. Id. at 5-6. There were 37 dogs inside the facility, most of which were sickly and emaciated. Id. at 7. They had a skeletal appearance, with their ribs, hip bones, and spinal cords clearly visible. Id. Five young dogs were sitting in very small crates with feces and urine. Id. at 6; Ex. F at 68; see also Ex. I-3 at 3, ECF No. 78-14; Ex. K at 6-7, ECF No. 78-17. Two young

4

puppies were in cages with no bottoms and a great amount of feces and urine. Ex. A at 6; Ex. F at 68; Ex. K at 6. ACO Kalinowski observed the dogs to be horribly emaciated and filthy and observed sores on the dogs. Ex. A at 6; see generally Ex. K. Some of the dogs had leg injuries. Ex. A at 7; Ex. K at 1, 3-4, 12-15.

The Plaintiff explained that the dogs that were emaciated and had wounds were dogs that he had just obtained from his friend. Ex. I at 29-32. Rassell also observed that those dogs “were in somewhat bad shape.” Ex. F at 37. There was a large amount of feces and urine on the floor- “a typhoon of poop,” in the Plaintiff's words. Ex. I at 26. The Plaintiff agrees that the conditions in the building on September 11 were “really messed up.” Id. at 44 (“I know somebody else seeing it, they were saying, ‘Oh, my God.'”). Officer Stamate, who photographed the dogs at the scene, observed feces and urine in and around several of the dog cages, a strong odor of urine, that several of the dogs were in poor health and appeared emaciated, and that several of the dogs had scars. Ex. A at 4.^[4] The photographs taken by Officer Stamate accurately show the Plaintiff's business on that date. Ex. I at 145; Ex. I-3. Officer Widen also observed a large amount of urine and feces on the floor on September 11, 2017. Ex. F at 104.

The Plaintiff asked ACO Kalinowski to take possession of some of the dogs, and she took possession of five dogs in poor health. Ex. A at 4, 7; Ex. I at 32-33. ACO Kalinowski was concerned for the health of the other dogs, but she could only take five dogs at that time because of limited space at St. John Animal Control. Ex. F at 75-76. She photographed some of the dogs she took from the facility. Ex. F at 70. The Plaintiff helped transport some of the dogs that he had given to ACO Kalinowski to St. John Animal Control. Ex. A at 8; Ex. I at 33.

5

One of the puppies that was taken had green mucus in both eyes, one of its eyes was stuck shut, it was emaciated and had stomach bloat, it was covered in feces and urine, and its paw pads were red and irritated. Ex. A at 6; Ex. F at 68; Ex. K at 7. Its paw pads were deformed, which ACO Kalinowski believed was due to being housed in a cage without a bottom tray for long periods of time. Ex. A at 6. Another puppy had been sitting in a wire cage without a bottom tray, with a lot of feces and urine; the dog was emaciated and had bloating. Id. ACO Kalinowski took the two puppies to a veterinarian that night. Id. at 8. The puppies were found to be in need of subcutaneous fluids, antibiotics, de-worming, and vaccination, and one of the puppies was quarantined for possible distemper. Id. The three other dogs were emaciated, dehydrated, and had bite wounds and scars on their feet and legs. Id.

ACO Kalinowski advised the Plaintiff that two of the dogs remaining at the facility were in horrible condition and needed to see a veterinarian that night due to...