Bry v. City of Frontenac
| Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:14-CV-1501 RLW,4:14-CV-1501 RLW |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | ROBERT M. BRY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRONTENAC, et al., Defendants. |
This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 101) and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 127). These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition.
On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff Robert Bry ("Plaintiff") called 911 emergency services and indicated that his wife Robin (Wolfsberger) Bry ("Robin") had attacked him with a knife. (Defendants' Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment ("DSUMF"), ECF No. 129, ¶1). Frontenac Police Officer Matthew Brune responded to the call and arrived at 10364 Conway Road, Frontenac, Missouri 63131. (DSUMF, ¶2). Officer Brune encountered Plaintiff, who was bleeding from his pinky finger. (DSUMF, ¶2). Frontenac Police Officer James Ford responded to the scene and observed a large amount of blood inside the house and on the street. (DSUMF, ¶3). Officer Ford also observed two long kitchen knives lying on the floor, both of which had blood on or near them. (DSUMF, ¶4). Plaintiff told the Frontenac Officers that he grabbed a knife because he thought it would keep Robin away from him. (DSUMF, ¶5). Plaintiff told the Frontenac Officers the direction that Robin had run away from the residence. (DSUMF, ¶6). Frontenac Officers, with the assistance of Ladue Police Officer Chris Lo, searched the area for Robin. (DSUMF, ¶7). Officer Lo located Robin a few houses away, behind a construction dumpster. (DSUMF, ¶8). Robin was dressed only in a nightgown, was crying, had no shoes on, and her hands were covered in blood. (DSUMF, ¶9). Robin had a cut on her hand and she was taken to Mercy Hospital for treatment. (DSUMF, ¶10). Robin told Officer Brune that she and Plaintiff hard argued and Plaintiff was either chased or kicked out of the house by Robin. (DSUMF, ¶11). Robin also told Officer Brune that Plaintiff had re-entered the house. (DSUMF, ¶12). The police report indicates that Robin told Officer Brune that Plaintiff approached her with a knife and she used a knife to defend herself. (DSUMF, ¶12).
Both Robin and Plaintiff were arrested on September 13, 2013. (DSUMF, ¶14). The Frontenac Police Report was presented to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Warrant Office for possible criminal charges. (DSUMF, ¶15). Assistant Prosecuting Attorney David Truman ("Truman") reviewed the case for the warrant office and decided to issue the charge of second degree assault against Plaintiff. (DSUMF, ¶¶15, 17). Truman prepared the criminal complaint, warrant documents, and probable cause statement. (DSUMF, ¶18). The complaint, warrant documents, and probable cause statement were given to St. Louis County Judge Michael Burton, who issued a warrant for Plaintiff's arrest. (DSUMF, ¶¶19, 20). Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Megan Julian presented the matter to a St. Louis County Grand Jury, and the grand jury indicted Plaintiff on the charge of domestic assault-second degree on October 30, 2013. (DSUMF, ¶22). The grand jury returned a true bill and found probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for domestic assault-second degree. (DSUMF, ¶23).
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for Violation of Plaintiff's Rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against the Police Officer Defendants (Defendants Newton, Ford, Loveless, Wuertz, Brune, Barnett, and Baumgartner) (Count I), Liability of the City of Frontenac for Violating Plaintiff's Rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count II), False Arrest under Missouri State Law against the Police Officer Defendants (Count III), Malicious Prosecution under Missouri State Law against the Police Officer Defendants (Count IV), Conspiracy to Violate the Constitutional Rights of Plaintiff against the Police Officer Defendants (Count V), and Conspiracy to Violate the Constitutional Rights of Plaintiff by Defendants (Count VI).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must view the allegations in the complaint liberally in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Luney v. SGS Auto Servs., 432 F.3d 866, 867 (8th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, the Court "must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief"requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1140 (E.D. Mo. 2007).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims against the defendant police officers in their official capacities should be dismissed because such a claim is really against the City of Frontenac. In Plaintiff's opposition, he states that any claims against the defendant police officers in their official capacities should be construed as against the City of Frontenac. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment 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 judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue ofmaterial fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Id.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "'Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that the Frontenac Officer Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights when they arrested, detained and prosecuted Plaintiff without probable cause and without a warrant. (SAC, ¶20).
Plaintiff contends that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him for the offense of domestic assault-second degree. The offense of domestic assault-second degree requires that a person (1) knowingly causes physical injury to such domestic victim by any means, including but not limited to, use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or by choking or strangulation; or (2) recklessly causes serious physical injury to such domestic victim; or (3) recklessly causes physical injury to such domestic victim by means of any deadly weapon. R.S. Mo. § 565.073.1. A "domestic victim" is defined as a "household or family member[.]" R.S.Mo. § 565.002.1(6). Plaintiff maintains that the totality of the circumstances did not establish that Plaintiff caused physical injury to Robin as the statute requires. Based upon the undisputed parts of the record, however, the Court concludes that a reasonable officer could have believed that Plaintiff had knowingly caused physical injury to Robin, his spouse.
When Officer Brune arrived at the Bry house, he saw Plaintiff with a relatively minor cut to his pinky. Thereafter, Brune and other officers located Robin, crying and hiding behind a dumpster, clothed only in a nightgown, and hands covered in blood. Officer Brune stated that Robin told him that Plaintiff had fought with her and she had kicked him out of the residence but he re-entered the residence, and she defended herself with a knife. (DSUMF, ¶¶11-12). Plaintiff disputes this fact and maintains that Robin chased him out of the house with a knife and that Robin told Officer Brune that she initiated the altercation with Plaintiff. The Court finds that Robin's physical injuries, as well as other evidence at the scene, support Brune's version of the events and provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial