Claro v. City of Sulphur, Case No. CIV-16-428-SPS
| Decision Date | 16 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CIV-16-428-SPS |
| Parties | JANIS CLARO, as next friend and Guardian of Lisa C. Schaapveld, an incapacitated person, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SULPHUR; MURRAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; JACK LAFOUNTAIN, in his individual capacity; JAY MCCLURE, in his individual capacity; VERONICA MEDINA, in her individual capacity; WILLIAM ODOM, in his individual capacity; and DAVID SHORES, in his supervisory capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
This case arises out of an encounter between Lisa Schaapveld and officers with the City of Sulphur Police Department, the Murray County Sheriff's Office, and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, among others. Due to a traumatic brain injury, Ms. Schaapveld has been found to be incapacitated and her aunt, Janis Claro, has been appointed as her guardian. The Plaintiff has named as Defendants the City of Sulphur, the Murray County Board of County Commissioners (representing the Murray County Sheriff's Office), the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (representing the Oklahoma Highway Patrol), Jack LaFountain in his individual capacity, Jay McClure in his individual capacity, Veronica Medina in her individual capacity, William Odom in his individual capacity, and David Shores in his supervisory capacity as Chief of the Sulphur Police Department. The Plaintiff has alleged claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as claims under Oklahoma state law. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant Board's Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 174]; Defendant Jay McClure's Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 175]; Defendants City of Sulphur, David Shores, Jack LaFountain, Veronica Medina, and William Odoms' Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 179]; and Defendant Oklahoma Department of Public Safety's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 183] should all be GRANTED.
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present case in this Court, alleging four causes of action against the various Defendants. The Plaintiff's first claim for relief is raised pursuant to Oklahoma state law as to the City of Sulphur, Murray County Board of County Commissioners, and the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, as well as all of the individual officers, alleging negligence. The second claim for relief is raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to Defendants Medina, LaFountain, Odom, and McClure, alleging unconstitutional use of excessive and unreasonable force. The third claim for relief is raised pursuant to § 1983 as to the City of Sulphur and Murray County Board of County Commissioners, alleging constitutional violations related to failure to train and supervise. Finally, the Plaintiff raises a supervisory liability claim pursuant to § 1983 as to DefendantShores in his "supervisory" capacity, alleging constitutional violations related to failure to intervene and prevent the use of excessive force. The Court addresses these claims in turn.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record 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 genuine issue of material fact exists when "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The moving party must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), with the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). However, "a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The undisputed facts reflect that Lisa Schaapveld lived in Sulphur, Oklahoma, and owned a dog grooming business called Supermutts. On January 30, 2015, Ms. Schaapveld was admitted to Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma in Ardmore, Oklahoma, with reports of suicidal thoughts, severe depression, paranoia, and hallucinations. She was discharged on February 2, 2015. Ms. Schaapveld was having a domestic argument with her partner, Angie Seeley, sometime on February 9, 2015. Ms. Seeley lost contact with Ms. Schaapveld and went to Supermutts to try to locate her, noting that Ms. Schaapveld'svehicle was parked in front of the shop. Still unable to make contact with Ms. Schaapveld, Ms. Seeley approached Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Tracey Laxton and asked him for help with Ms. Schaapveld. He and two other officers knocked on the door of the shop, and Ms. Schaapveld came within their view and told them she wanted to be left alone. Seeing no immediate cause for concern at that time, the officers left the store.
Shortly thereafter, a 911 dispatcher answered a call at 2:56 p.m. that someone was inside the Supermutts with a gun. The first officer on the scene saw Ms. Schaapveld acting strangely and that she would not respond to him or open the locked door. He then went to the pawn shop located next door, where a man said he saw a woman with a gun who had said something about suicide. The officer then returned to Supermutts with another officer, at which time they observed Ms. Schaapveld with a revolver in her hand. They asked her to put the gun down, but she refused and made further suicidal statements, including that she was only coming out in a body bag.
As this situation developed, other law enforcement agencies also responded to the scene to assist the Sulphur Police Department ("SPD"), including the Murray County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO"), the Oklahoma Highway Patrol ("OHP"), and, apparently, rangers from the National Park Service. All the responding officers worked together to set up a perimeter to keep civilians out of the area. SPD Officer Medina, one of the named Defendants, approached the building and began engaging Ms. Schaapveld with Captain Lafountain, also a named Defendant, who served as her assistant. Defendant Medina and Ms. Schaapveld spoke off and on for two hours, and Defendant Medina even arranged the delivery of a hamburger to Ms. Schaapveld during this time. Other officers, includingDefendant Odom, another SPD officer, took a position on the other side of the building. Ms. Schaapveld was holding the gun the entire time, although it is disputed as to whether she "waived it around" or aimed it at anyone aside from herself.
SPD Chief David Shores later arrived at the scene and took control as the officer in charge. Around 5:00 p.m., he approached Ms. Schaapveld and demanded that she put the gun down and come out, causing her to become agitated and leave the front of the store and the view of the officers. Upon returning to the front of the store, she refused to speak with Defendant Medina anymore, but eventually began a dialogue with OHP Trooper Laxton.1 As part of their conversations, Ms. Schaapveld conveyed that she would come out if methamphetamine was provided.
At some point after dark fell, Ms. Schaapveld turned off the lights in the front of the store and went to the rear of the store out of view of the officers, but returned to the front about thirty minutes later, turned on the lights, and began hanging a curtain or sheet to cover the north window in the store. This was the window through which Ms. Schaapveld had been communicating with various officers. She placed the gun down in order to cover the window, although it is disputed as to whether the gun was placed at her feet, or approximately ten feet away. While doing this, Trooper Laxton asked her to not cover up the window. Chief Shores, believing Ms. Schaapveld had been separated from the gun, ordered the SPD Special Response Team ("SRT") to breach the door and secure the gun. The SRT, led by SPD Officer Jason Conyer attempted to use a t-post driver to break thedoor open three times, but was unsuccessful. While Officer Conyer unsuccessfully attempted to break the door down, Trooper Laxton attempted to distract Ms. Schaapveld from the officers trying to break the door down by breaking the north window. Defendant McClure, an MCSO Deputy, was standing near Trooper Laxton and the broken north window, and reached inside to move the curtain. Upon moving the curtain, Defendant McClure saw Ms. Schaapveld with the gun again in her hand, shot her while backing away (and presumably allowing the curtain to fall back into place), then moved the curtain again to see Ms. Schaapveld turning in the direction of officers positioned as the south window of the store. He fired a second and third time as he saw her turning toward the officers then back toward him. Plaintiff disputes whether Ms. Schaapveld was pointing the gun at the officers during this time, contending she was holding the gun in her hand not in a threatening manner but like a "scared little kid," but it is undisputed that the gun remained in her hand.
While Defendant McClure was in position and shooting through the north window, Defendants Medina, LaFountain, and Odom had moved to the south window to see what was happening. All three fired their weapons through the south window, shattering it. Ms. Schaapveld was hit by bullets seven times, and twelve casings were recovered at the scene - four from Defendant McClure's service weapon and eight from the service weapons of Defendants Medina, Lafountain, and Odom. An OSBI investigation determined that Ms. Schappveld's gun contained eight bullets which had not been fired, and each round had at least one firing pin strike on it although testing found the gun operable and capable of firing. Ms....
To continue reading
Request your trial