Brown v. Griggs
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-00091-RJS-CMR |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2023 |
| Parties | MIKEL R. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DARRELL GRIGGS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
MEMORADUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Now before the court is Plaintiff Mikel R. Brown's Objection[1] to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M Romero's Report and Recommendation (the Report).[2] In the Report, Judge Romero recommends this court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.[3]For the reasons stated below, the Report is ADOPTED with one modification,[4] and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND[5]
In March 2022, Brown attended a Utah State Senate committee meeting to hear debate on proposed HB60.[6]Brown wore a shirt with the words “WE THE PEOPLE.”[7] Before the meeting started, attendees passed around a clipboard with stickers reading, “Vote Yes, HB60.”[8]Brown took two stickers, placing one on his hat and one on his phone case.[9]He saw other attendees put the stickers on their shirts.[10]
As Brown waited for the meeting to start, he noticed the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Utah State Senate-Defendant Darrell Griggs-“going around the room and demanding that the stickers be removed.”[11]Brown asked Griggs what rule prohibited the stickers, but Griggs did not answer.[12]Brown nevertheless offered to “replace the sticker.”[13]
Griggs was not appeased, and he motioned toward Defendant Wade Breur, a Utah Highway Patrol officer, and referring to Brown said, “Let's ask him [] to step outside.”[14] Breur then explained that while stickers were allowed in the House, the Senate had different rules.[15]Brown commented that he had worn stickers in Senate committee meetings before, and Breur replied that Defendant Daniel McCay-the senator chairing the meeting-decided what rules were enforced.[16]Brown asked if he had to remove the sticker on his phone, and Breur began explaining that signs and banners were prohibited in committee meetings.[17]Brown replied, “It's not a sign.”[18]Breur then stated, “I will give you [one] chance to take off any visible stickers before the meeting begins, and if you don't, then you're out.”[19]Brown and Breur continued to discuss the rule prohibiting stickers, and Breur stated the rule carried the effect of law, but he could not identify the specific rule.[20]
Breur walked away, and Brown saw him speaking with Griggs, McCay, and Defendant Greg Holley, a Utah Highway Patrol officer.[21]McCay then opened the meeting and began discussing the meeting rules.[22]He stated stickers were not allowed and the meeting would be in recess for five minutes because some attendees were not following that rule.[23]
Once the meeting was in recess, Griggs told Brown to put his stickers away.[24]Brown asked where the stickers needed to go, and Griggs told him to “fold them up and put them someplace where they can't be seen.”[25]Brown removed his stickers and asked if Griggs wanted them, but received no reply.[26]Brown then gave Griggs one of his stickers, and Griggs asked for the other sticker.[27]Brown refused and said he would flip it over, and Griggs commented, “Ok, if you turn it over hopefully we won't have to take it.”[28]
Brown and Griggs discussed the stickers some more, and Brown asked what law he was violating but received no answer.[29]At this point, Brown's sticker was folded and “not visibly noticeable to anyone within [his] immediate vicinity.”[30]Some attendees, including Brown, began questioning Griggs about his Ukrainian flag lapel pin.[31]Griggs “appear[ed] to take issue with this questioning” and demanded that Brown hand over his sticker.[32]When Brown refused, Griggs motioned toward Holley, who motioned for Brown to come with him.[33]Brown responded, “[T]he sticker is put away.”[34]
Holley and Defendant Seth Dalton (another Utah Highway Patrol officer)[35]approached Brown and told him he was being removed from the meeting.[36]Holley grabbed Brown's arm “in an attempt to forcibly remove [him] from the meeting,” but then let go and explained Brown was being removed for disruptive behavior.[37]When Brown responded that the meeting was in recess and not disrupted, Holley replied, “Do you want to be arrested or do you want to leave?”[38]Brown answered, [39]Holley then told Brown he was under arrest, and Holley and Dalton grabbed his arms.[40]
Breur approached Brown from behind and began pushing him across the room, with help from Holley and Dalton.[41]Two other Utah Highway Patrol officers, Defendants Roger Daniels and Ernest Peterson,[42]came to help with the arrest, and Brown's arms were “forcibly placed behind his back,” and he was handcuffed.[43]Other meeting attendees questioned the arrest, in some instances addressing their comments to McCay.[44]
Shortly after being removed from the meeting, Brown had a panic attack and went “limp to the floor.”[45]Breur, Dalton, Holley, Daniels, and Peterson then carried Brown to a basement holding room.[46]After about ten minutes, Brown heard Breur and Dalton discussing what crimes to charge Brown with.[47]Brown heard Breur ask an unknown person over the phone if Brown “was removed from the meeting because of his shirt and/or the sticker.”[48]Breur also asked if the meeting was still in recess and how long Brown would be banned for.[49]
After Brown had been in handcuffs for about thirty minutes, they were removed and Breur Mirandized him.[50] Brown told Breur he was having a panic attack and asked to speak with his attorney, who the officers said was upstairs.[51]The officers would not let him leave, and a medical team arrived to take Brown's vitals.[52]When the medical team finished, the officers said they would take Brown upstairs to speak with his attorney when they finished questioning him.[53]Dalton told Brown he was being cited for disrupting a meeting or procession.[54] Brown was fingerprinted and then released.[55]
The Salt Lake City prosecutor later moved to dismiss the case against Brown, acknowledging “the apparent confusion” over what speech was permitted at the meeting undermined a reasonable likelihood of success at trial.[56]The case against Brown was dismissed in April 2022.[57]
In July 2022, Brown initiated this action in federal court.[58]He filed an Amended Complaint in October 2022, alleging the events described above.[59]As Defendants he named Michael Rapich, the Superintendent of the Utah Highway Patrol, as well as Griggs, Dalton, Holley, Breur, Daniels, Peterson, and McCay.[60]
The Amended Complaint asserts seven claims. The first four claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and assert violations of Brown's First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.[61]The first three claims are asserted against all Defendants, but the fourth excludes Griggs.[62]Generally, Brown asserts Griggs, Dalton, Holley, Breur, Daniels, and Peterson (collectively, the Officer Defendants) directly violated his constitutional rights, and McCay and Rapich failed or were deliberately indifferent toward their “duties to train, supervise, and oversee” the Officer Defendants.[63]The remaining three claims are brought under state law: false imprisonment; malicious prosecution; and aggravated assault, battery, and harassment.[64]These state law claims are brought against the Officer Defendants only, excluding Griggs.[65]Brown requests declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages.[66]
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[67]Among other things, Defendants argue legislative, qualified, and governmental immunity apply.[68]After the Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed,[69]Brown filed a Motion for Writ Affidavit of Commercial Liability.[70] In his Motion, Brown argued Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was improperly filed because it was not supported by affidavits.[71]
The case was referred to Judge Romero under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and she issued the Report, recommending the court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.[72]She also denied Brown's Motion for Writ Affidavit of Commercial Liability.[73] In the Report, Judge Romero first noted that Brown named all Defendants in both their official and personal capacities, except for Rapich, whom Brown sued in his official capacity only.[74]Judge Romero then explained that official capacity suits are treated as suits against the official's employer, and here, Brown failed to name Defendants' employer (the State of Utah) as a party.[75]Accordingly, she recommended dismissing without prejudice all official capacity claims.[76]She further explained that without official capacity claims, declaratory and injunctive relief were not available.[77]
Next the Report addressed the claims against McCay in his personal capacity.[78]Judge Romero determined “McCay's actions to maintain order during the legislative meeting related to legislation and legislative function, given that the purpose of the meeting was to listen to debate about the proposed HB60.”[79]She thus recommended concluding legislative immunity applies and dismissing all claims against McCay without prejudice.[80] Judge Romero then turned to the § 1983 claims against the Officer Defendants in their personal capacities.[81]Brown's first claim asserts the Officer Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause.[82]The Officer Defendants raised a qualified immunity defense,[83]and Judge Romero evaluated Brown's claim under both prongs of the qualified immunity test.[84] After a thorough review of the Amended Complaint and relevant caselaw, she concluded Brown failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial