Conachen v. Boundary County Sheriff's Dep't

• Decision Date: 29 April 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:09-CV-0047-EJL-REB
• Parties: JAMES W. CONACHEN, Plaintiff, v. BOUNDARY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

JAMES W. CONACHEN, Plaintiff,

v.BOUNDARY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:09-CV-0047-EJL-REB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

DATED: April 29, 2011

MEMORANDUM ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 42.) The Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The matter is ripe for the Court's consideration. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately represented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, and in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this Motion shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff James W. Conachen's Amended Complaint in this action raises civilrights claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1988 alleging violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Dkt. No. 37.) The event giving rise to the claims occurred on the evening of February 18, 2008 when Mr. Conachen was arrested and detained. The named Defendants are the Boundary County Sheriff's Department ("BCSD"), the Boundary County Sheriff Greg Sprungl, and Boundary County Sheriff's Deputy Donald Van Meter's (Collectively referred to as "Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 37.)

Prior to the evening in question, Mr. Conachen had made several reports to the BCSD of frequent speeding in his neighborhood, vandalism of the speed limit sign, and threats made to he and other neighbors. (Dkt. No. 37, p. 4.) Mr. Conachen alleges the BCSD told him a visual estimation of speed would not hold up in court, which prompted him to set up a video recording system to capture the speeding violations. Conflicts between he and his neighbors over the speeding, Mr. Conachen argues, escalated to at least one instance of him being threatened with a gun. (Dkt. No. 37.) Mr. Conachen alleges the BCSD took no action to investigate, patrol the area, or prosecute those responsible for speeding, vandalizing, or threatening behaviors. He further alleges that the BCSD were becoming "aggravated" over his repeated reports and started hanging up on him whenever he would call. (Dkt. No. 37, p. 5.)

Eventually, and as a result of their alleged refusal to take action, Mr. Conachen initiated other steps against the Defendants including a campaign to recall Sheriff Sprung, filing a state tort claim against Boundary County, and initiating a petition to replace the speed limit sign and add a "children at play" sign. (Dkt. No. 37, p. 7.) Mr. Conachen asserts his arrest in question here was motivated by the Defendants' malice toward him because of his repeated speeding reports and these other actions taken against the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 37, p. 9.)

On the evening of February 18, 2008, Mr. Conachen placed two phone calls to the BCSD Dispatch to report a vehicle reving its engine, spinning its tires, and traveling recklessly by his residence in excess of the posted 25 miles per hour speed limit. (Dkt. No. 45, Ex. A.) During these calls, Mr. Conachen made certain comments to the BCSD Dispatcher which prompted her to dispatch officers to Mr. Conachen's residence. Deputy Van Meter, and two other law enforcement officers, responded to Mr. Conachen's home.¹ The parties' version of the evening diverge some what upon Deputy Van Meter's arrival at Mr. Conachen's home. Mr. Conachen asserts that Deputy Van Meter entered his property with an assault rifle pointed at him, ordering him out of his house, to drop the spot light he held in his hand, and to lay face down on the ground in the snow. Mr. Conachen asserts he was then, and without justification, handcuffed and tasered by Deputy Van Meter without being told why he was being arrested. (Dkt. No. 37, p. 8.)Defendants do not necessarily dispute Mr. Conachen's account of the events that evening but, instead, contend they acted reasonably in light of the threats Mr. Conachen had made in his calls to BCSD Dispatch that evening, the fact that he was armed with a.45 caliber pistol, and he was actively resisting the officers. (Dkt. No. 42.) Mr. Conachen any resistance. (Dkt. No. 51.)

Mr. Conachen was eventually arrested and then taken to the emergency room where the taser barbs were removed and a mental health evaluation was completed. (Dkt. No. 37, p. 9.) He was booked into the Boundary County jail and later charged with resisting arrest and obstructing an officer in violation of Idaho Code § 18-705. (Dkt. No. 45, Aff. Mumford, Ex. D.) Mr. Conachen was later acquitted by a jury of all charges.

As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Conachen initiated this lawsuit, filing an Amended Complaint on April 26, 2010 raising three counts:

Count I: Action for Deprivation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Fourth Amendment Violations

Count II: Action for Deprivation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Violations

Count III: Action for Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights (42 U.S.C.§ 1985)

(Dkt. No 37.) Mr. Conachen claims that as a result of the Defendants' actions he has been diagnosed with stress related illness, had to hire an attorney to defend himself of the charges, and he was forced to sell his home, losing more than $67,000, and move out of Boundary County. The Defendants have filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts as well as supporting materials which the Court now takes up. (Dkt. No. 42.)

STANDARD OF LAW

Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he court shall 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. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).² "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) 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 othermaterials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). Once the moving party has met this initial burden, the nonmoving party has the subsequent burden of presenting evidence to show that a genuine issue of fact remains. The party opposing the motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 248. If the nonmoving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial" then summary judgment is proper as "there can be no 'genuine issue of material fact, ' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).³

Moreover, under Rule 56, it is clear that an issue, in order to preclude entry of summary judgment, must be both "material" and "genuine." An issue is "material" if it affects the outcome of the litigation. An issue, before it may be considered "genuine," must be established by "sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute... to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.3d 461, 464 (1st Cir. 1975) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co. Inc., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)). The Ninth Circuit cases are in accord. See, e.g., British Motor Car Distrib. v. San Francisco Automotive Indus. Welfare Fund, 883 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1989).

According to the Ninth Circuit, in order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, a party

(1) must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to any element for which it bears the burden of proof; (2) must show that there is an issue that may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party; and (3) must come forward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary when the factual context makes the non-moving party's claim implausible.

Id. at 374 (citation omitted). Of course, when applying the above standard, the court must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir. 1992).

DISCUSSION

Counts I and II of the Complaint both raise § 1983 claims based on numerous grounds while Count III alleges a § 1985 claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. (Dkt. No. 37.) The Court will address each claim below in turn.

I. Counts I and II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

Congress has created a cause of action against private individuals who, while acting under color of law, violate the constitutional rights of private citizens promulgated in 42 U.S.C. § 1 983 which provides in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, [...] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivations of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

...