Charles v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 10 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 5:21-cv-153 (MTT) |
| Parties | KYNNEDI'RAE JOAN CHARLES, Plaintiff, v. GARY WAYNE CHAMBERS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Pro se Plaintiff Kynnedi'rae Joan Charles raises a variety of constitutional and state law claims arising from her interaction with the Warner Robins Police Department (“WRPD”) while her car was being towed from the storefront parking lot of a nail salon. Doc. 29. Specifically, Charles claims Defendants Robert Greene and Christopher Richard Scuderi, both officers with the WRPD violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful arrest and excessive force, and committed the torts of assault, battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress when they removed Charles from her vehicle. Id. ¶¶ 52-65, 77-97. Charles also contends the City of Warner Robins and John Wagner, Jr., the Chief of the WRPD, are liable under a theory of supervisory liability and for their failure to train Greene and Scuderi. Id. ¶¶ 66-76. Defendants Greene, Scuderi Wagner, and the City now move for summary judgment. Doc. 57. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' motion (Doc 57) is GRANTED.
Greene, an Officer with the WRPD, responded to a property dispute at a shopping center in Warner Robins, Georgia, on November 7, 2020. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 1.
Upon arrival, Greene observed a tow truck hooked to a white Mercedes sedan, about five feet from the storefront of USA Nails. Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Greene spoke to the tow truck driver, who informed Greene that as he was attempting to repossess the Mercedes, a woman, later identified as Charles, ran from USA Nails and jumped into the vehicle. Id. ¶ 2. The tow truck driver showed Greene cell phone video, taken prior to Greene's arrival, of “the Mercedes' tires turning at a high rate of speed and the vehicle bouncing while attached to the tow truck.” Doc. 57-1 ¶ 3; Greene Bodycam 18:16:06-18:17:02.
Greene called for backup, and Officer Scuderi responded. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 4.
Scuderi parked his patrol vehicle so that it faced the tow truck, and the Mercedes to which it was attached. Scuderi Dashcam 18:24:08. Greene briefed Scuderi on the situation, then once again spoke to the tow truck driver who confirmed that Charles was not inside the vehicle when he hooked up the tow truck, and that “[a]s soon as [he] lifted it up, she climbed in.” Doc. 57-1 ¶ 5. Greene then spoke to three witnesses at the Sports Clips adjacent to USA Nails, who all confirmed that the Mercedes was already hooked to the tow truck when Charles ran out of USA Nails and jumped in the vehicle. Id. ¶ 6. Meanwhile, Scuderi contacted a supervisor to discuss the situation and determine the appropriate response. Id. ¶ 7.
Charles remained seated in the driver's seat of the Mercedes with the vehicle off as Greene and Scuderi investigated. Greene Bodycam 18:16:07-18:31:00. As Greene finished speaking to the witnesses, Scuderi approached the driver's side of the Mercedes and instructed Charles to exit the vehicle. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 8. Charles refused. Id. Greene then approached, stood behind Scuderi next to the driver's side passenger door, and also told Charles to exit the vehicle. Doc. 57-1 ¶¶ 8-9; Greene Bodycam 18:30:18-18:30:31. Once again, Charles refused. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 9.
This exchange continued for several minutes, with Scuderi ultimately warning Charles that if she refused to exit, they would break the window and remove her from the vehicle. Id. In response, Charles turned on the ignition and locked the doors. Id. (citing Greene Bodycam 18:30:57). Although it is unclear from Greene's bodycam footage, both Greene and Scuderi, through sworn affidavits, stated Charles then moved her hand to the vehicle's gear shifter. Docs. 57-5 ¶¶ 8-9; 57-6 ¶¶ 8-9. In any event, what happened next is clear. Greene deployed his baton and broke the rear driver's side window, and immediately reached through the broken window to unlock the front driver's side door. Doc. 57-1 ¶¶ 10-11; Greene Bodycam 18:31:20. Charles then placed the vehicle in drive and floored the accelerator. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 10; Scuderi Dashcam 18:31:08. The vehicle, still attached to the tow truck with its rear wheels elevated, bounced as it strained against the tow trucks rigging. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 10; Scuderi Dashcam 18:31:08-18:31:21. Scuderi then opened the unlocked front driver's door and reached into the vehicle to place it in park. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 11; Greene Bodycam 18:31:23. A struggle ensued as both Scuderi and Greene ordered Charles to exit the vehicle, with both officers attempting to pull Charles out of the front driver's side door before Scuderi moved to the front passenger's side door. Doc. 57 ¶ 11; Scuderi Dashcam 18:31:2518:31:40.
Once at the front passenger's side door, Scuderi told Charles that if she continued to resist, she would be tased. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 12. Charles refused to comply, and “Scuderi drew his taser and ‘sparked' it to encourage compliance.” Id. Scuderi maintains he did not tase Charles, although Charles, through her own affidavits, says that he did, or at least that “the wireless taser spark jumped onto [her] arm causing muscle contractions.” Docs. 57-6 ¶ 11; 60-6 ¶ 7; 62 ¶ 7. The videos, in this regard, are of little help because both Scuderi's and Greene's bodycams[2]were knocked off during the struggle and Scuderi's dashcam could not capture what was happening inside the vehicle.[3] Greene Bodycam 18:31:34-18:35:54; Scuderi Dashcam 18:31:34-18:32:44.
Greene was eventually able to remove Charles from the vehicle, at which point Scuderi returned to the driver's side to assist. Scuderi Dashcam 18:32:43; Doc. 57-1 ¶ 13. Initially, Greene was only able to handcuff one of Charles's hands. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 13. Both Scuderi and Greene repeatedly directed Charles to place both hands behind her back, but Charles continued to resist. Id. As the struggle outside the vehicle continued, Scuderi said “stop resisting or you are going to get tased, this is your last warning.” Doc. 57-1 ¶ 14; Scuderi Dashcam 18:32:45-18:32:49. Charles then lunged for Scuderi's taser. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 14; Scuderi Dashcam 18:33:10. Scuderi exclaimed “don't touch my taser,” and then said, “if you touch my taser again, and it's going to get bad.” Scuderi Dashcam 18:33:10-18:33:16. Approximately three minutes after Greene first broke the window to remove Charles from the vehicle, Greene and Scuderi were able to gain control of Charles's remaining uncuffed hand and place both her wrists in handcuffs. Scuderi Dashcam 18:31:20-18:33:59.
Officer Jump arrived immediately after Greene and Scuderi handcuffed Charles.[4]Doc. 57-1 ¶ 15; Scuderi Dashcam 18:33:45. The three officers escorted Charles away from the vehicle, and Scuderi and Jump lowered Charles to the ground to a seated position. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 15. Because Charles said she was pregnant and complained of back pain and cuts to the bottoms of her feet from the broken window glass, the officers requested Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”). Id. ¶ 16. EMS arrived on scene and transported Charles to Houston Medical Center for evaluation and treatment. Id. Once at Houston Medical Center, Charles's medical records show that she refused medical treatment, including an ultrasound, and was released into police custody.[5] Doc. 57-3 at 15-24. On January 6, 2021, Charles went to the Houston Medical Center Emergency Department and complained of abdominal cramping. Id. at 25-26. She reported she was told by a third-party healthcare provider that her pregnancy was non-viable and that she would need a dilation and curettage procedure (“D&C”). Id. at 25-36. As for Greene and Scuderi, an internal review by the WRPD concluded that the amount of force used “was reasonable and within the policies and procedures” of the department. Doc. 57-1 ¶ 18.
Proceeding pro se, Charles filed her complaint on April 30, 2021. Doc. 1. After retaining counsel, Charles, with leave of Court, amended her complaint. Docs. 24; 27. Charles's counsel then moved to withdraw, which the Court granted. Docs. 28; 30. With discovery complete, the defendants have moved for summary judgment.[6]Doc. 57.
A court must grant summary judgment “if 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). A factual dispute is not genuine unless based on the evidence presented, “‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir. 1991)); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The movant may support its assertion that a fact is undisputed by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). “When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party is not required to ‘support its motion with affidavits or other similar material negating the opponent's claim[]' in order to discharge this ‘initial responsibility.'” Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d at 1437-38 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Rather, “the moving party simply may ‘show[ ]-that is, point[ ] out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.'” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324...
To continue reading
Request your trial