Chamberlain v. City of White Plains

Decision Date29 May 2020
Docket NumberDocket No. 16-3935,August Term, 2018
Citation960 F.3d 100 (Mem)
Parties Kenneth CHAMBERLAIN, Jr. as the Administrator of the ESTATE OF Kenneth CHAMBERLAIN, Sr., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, P.O. Anthony Carelli, P.O. Maurice Love, P.O. Steven Demchuk, P.O. Marek Markowski, Sgt. Stephen Fottrell, Sgt. Keith Martin, Lt. James Spencer, Defendants–Appellees, White Plains Housing Authority, P.O. Steven Hart, Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Debra S. Cohen, Newman Ferrara, New York, NY (Randolph M. McLaughlin and Danielle B. Sullivan, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth Chamberlain, Jr. as the Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr.

Lalit K. Loomba, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, White Plains, NY (John M. Flannery and Peter A. Meisels, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees City of White Plains, P.O. Maurice Love, P.O. Steven Demchuk, P.O. Marek Markowski, Sgt. Stephen Fottrell, Sgt. Keith Martin, and Lt. James Spencer.

Andrew Quinn, The Quinn Law Firm, White Plains, NY, (Lisa M. Fantino, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee Anthony Carelli.

Before: Sack and Hall, Circuit Judges.**

Sack and Hall, Circuit Judges:

This case arises from a deadly incident that occurred in the City of White Plains, New York, in the early morning of November 19, 2011. It began when Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr. ("Chamberlain"), a 68-year old African-American U.S. Marine veteran with mental illness, living alone in a city-owned rental apartment, accidentally activated an emergency medical-alert system to which he subscribed. It ended over an hour later in Chamberlain’s death when he was shot by police as some dozen heavily armed officers with "tactical gear" were forcing their entry into his apartment.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth Chamberlain, Jr. ("Appellant"), the son of Chamberlain and administrator of his estate, appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J .) in favor of the defendants. The defendants are: Officers Anthony Carelli, Maurice Love, Steven Demchuk, and Marek Markowski, Sergeants Stephen Fottrell and Keith Martin, and Lieutenant James Spencer, all members of the White Plains Police Force, and the City of White Plains (the "City") itself.

On appeal, Appellant challenges two orders of the district court. The first is the opinion and order dated December 10, 2013, in which the court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the unlawful entry claim against individual defendants and to dismiss the excessive force claim against defendant Martin arising from Martin’s use of a bean-bag shotgun. The second is the oral decision of September 12, 2016, in which the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the supervisory liability claims against Officers Martin and Fottrell, the resurrected excessive force claim against Officer Martin, and the Monell claim against the City. Before trial, the district court granted Officer Carelli’s and the City’s motions in limine to prevent Appellant from introducing evidence supporting a claim of assault based on the actions of the officers before they opened Chamberlain’s door and from introducing any medical records addressing Chamberlain’s medical conditions. At the conclusion of the jury trial on the excessive force claim against Officer Carelli and on the assault and battery claims under New York state law against Officer Carelli and the City, the jury found in favor of those defendants.

BACKGROUND

The following statement of facts is drawn from the allegations of the Amended Complaint, as supplemented by the audio and video recordings (and written transcripts thereof)1 integral thereto.2 Because we first review the grant of a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this recitation is based on well-pleaded allegations , not proven facts. We accept the "well-pleaded factual allegations [augmented on this appeal by the audio and video recordings] as true and draw all reasonable inferences in [Appellant’s] favor." Hart v. FCI Lender Servs., Inc ., 797 F.3d 219, 221 (2d Cir. 2015).

At around 5:00 a.m. on November 19, 2011, Chamberlain accidentally activated his Life Aid medical button.3 The Life Aid operator who responded to the alert immediately sought to contact Chamberlain "via a two-way communication device" located in his home, Amended Complaint ¶ 12, but was unsuccessful. The device began recording attempts by the operator to reach Chamberlain.

Unable to communicate directly with Chamberlain, the Life Aid operator reported the medical alert to the White Plains Department of Public Safety, which directs and controls White Plains’ police and emergency services. The operator also contacted Chamberlain’s sister, Carol Mathew, at her residence in North Carolina.

In response to the Life Aid call, the police dispatcher in White Plains sent an ambulance and a police squad car to Chamberlain’s apartment. By searching the police database, the dispatcher learned that Chamberlain had been previously classified as an "emotionally disturbed person." 4

The dispatcher advised all responding units of that fact and "downgraded" the call so that no lights or sirens would be used, presumably to avoid agitating Chamberlain unnecessarily.

When the police arrived at Chamberlain’s apartment complex, they entered and proceeded to his front door. Despite the dispatcher’s warning that Chamberlain was a person with mental illness, the officers began banging loudly on his door and shouting demands that they be allowed to enter. The noise alarmed Chamberlain, who then activated his Life Aid button to report "an emergency" that "the White Plains Police Department [is] banging on my door and I did not call them and I am not sick." J. App’x. 210 (Transcript of Clip 201). The operator attempted to inform the police officers at the apartment that she was "on the line with Mr. Chamberlain[,] he’s ok at this time," but it is not clear from the audio recording whether she was successful in doing so. Id. at 211 (Transcript of Clip 202). Soon thereafter, however, the operator completed a telephone call to the White Plains Police to cancel the police dispatch. In response, the police dispatcher informed her that "they’re gonna make entry anyway .... They’re gonna open it anyway." Id. at 213 (Transcript of Clip 203).

Chamberlain also repeatedly told the Life Aid operator and the officers at his door that he had not called the police. Id. at 220 (Transcript of Clip 207) ("Life Alert [sic] the police are forcing my door and I did not call for them."); id . at 219 (Transcript of Clip 206) ("I didn’t call you."); id . at 229 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("I never called the police department."). One officer at the scene acknowledged as much: "Mr. Chamberlain, your medical alert went off accidentally." Id. at 229 (Transcript of Clip 209) (attributed to Police Officer Hart). Further, from the beginning of his encounter with the police, Chamberlain stated lucidly, repeatedly, and emphatically to the Life Aid operator and the officers at his door that he was not in need of assistance. See, e.g. , id. at 212 (Transcript of Clip 202) (stating that he was "okay" five times and "fine" twice); id . at 214–15 (Transcript of Clip 204) ("okay" twice; "fine" twice); id . at 219 (Transcript of Clip 206) ("okay" three times); id . at 230–36 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("okay" eight times; "fine" sixteen times).

Despite this insistence by Chamberlain and information from the Life Aid operator that Chamberlain was not in need of medical attention and that the Life Aid device had been triggered accidentally, the officers "continued relentlessly in their attempts to forcibly gain entry to the apartment." Amended Complaint ¶ 34. Because Chamberlain continued to refuse to open his door, the officers radioed for tactical reinforcements. There were approximately twelve officers in the augmented police force when they attempted to gain entry. They were armed with heavy "tactical gear," including handguns, a beanbag shotgun, Taser, riot shield, and pepper spray.5

The police initiated their entry into Chamberlain’s apartment using a master key that they had received from the White Plains Housing Authority. However, a "slap lock" on Chamberlain’s door, acting rather like an engaged door chain, prevented the door from being opened more than a few inches.6 The officers wedged a Halligan tool—a relative of a crowbar—into the door opening to prevent Chamberlain from closing the door. This initial partial opening of the door was sufficient for the police to confirm visually that Chamberlain was not in need of medical attention and that Chamberlain, who had long lived alone, "was not [at the time the forced, armed entry began], a danger to himself or the officers." Amended Complaint ¶ 32.

Once the door was propped open—and Chamberlain could view the heavily armed officers in front of his door—the encounter escalated dramatically. Seeing the officers’ weapons, Chamberlain apparently grew fearful for his life and limb. See J. App’x 229 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("you gonna shoot me, you got your gun ready"); id. at 235 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("They have stunguns and shotguns at the ready. They gonna hit me with the stungun."); id. at 236 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("[T]hey are standing here with stunguns and shotguns ... and a 9mm Glock at the ready."). Chamberlain also shouted repeatedly that he was convinced that the police were there to kill him. See id. at 221 (Transcript of Clip 207) (stating "you’re gonna kill me" five times); id. at 223 (Transcript of Clip 207) ("They are trying to hurt me and murder me."); id. at 227 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("They are trying to break in to murder me."); id. at 236 (Transcript of Clip 209) ("They’re getting ready to kill me or beat me up."). As Chamberlain became more agitated, he began exhibiting delusions, hallucinations, and flashbacks to his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Williams v. Maurer
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 17 Agosto 2021
    ...236 (holding that an anonymous call alone is not enough to demonstrate an exigent circumstance); Chamberlain Est. of Chamberlain v. City of White Plains , 960 F.3d 100, 111–12 (2d Cir. 2020) (same); Storey v. Taylor , 696 F.3d 987, 996 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that an anonymous caller's "r......
  • Sibley v. Watches
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 16 Noviembre 2020
    ......State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York , 487 U.S. 1, 14, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) ). ... Chamberlain v. City of White Plains , 960 F.3d 100, 105 (2d Cir. 2020) ("[D]ocuments ......
  • Buchanan v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 23 Agosto 2021
    ...a general rule, ‘the defense of qualified immunity cannot support the grant of a [ Rule] 12(b)(6) motion.’ " Chamberlain v. City of White Plains , 960 F.3d 100, 110 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Green v. Maraio , 722 F.2d 1013, 1018 (2d Cir. 1983) ). For such a motion to succeed, "[n]ot only must......
  • Jakuttis v. Town of Dracut
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 14 Febrero 2023
    ...... Haley v. City of Boston , 657 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir. 2011). . 11 . . ... judgment. See Chamberlain Est. of Chamberlain v. City of. White Plains , 960 F.3d 100, 110 (2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT