Couden v. Duffey
| Decision Date | 08 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 03-369-MPT. |
| Citation | 533 F.Supp.2d 490 |
| Parties | Pamela A. COUDEN; Tiffany A. Couden; Adam R. Couden, a minor, by his next friend, Pamela A. Couden; Nicholas M. Couden, a minor, by his next friend, Pamela A. Couden; Jordan T. Couden, a minor, by his next friend, Pamela A. Couden: Luke J. Couden, a minor, by his next friend, Pamela A. Couden; and Micah J. Couden, a minor by his next friend, Pamela A. Couden, Plaintiffs, v. Scott DUFFEY; James C Armstrong: Jay Freebery; Liam Sullivan: Two unknown named agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; New Castle County: New Castle County Police Department; City of Wilmington; City of Wilmington Department of Police; and the United States of America, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
William D. Fletcher Jr., Esquire And Noel E. Primos Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, DE, for Plaintiffs.
Colm F. Connoly, United States Attorney and Seth M. Beausang, Assistant United State Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant Duffey.
Rosamaria Tassone, City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant Sullivan.
Richard R. Weir, Jr. and Michele D. Allen, Richard R. Weir, Jr., P.A., Wilmington, DE, for Defendants Armstrong and Freebery.
Judith A. Hildick, First Assistant County Attorney, New Castle County Law Department, New Castle, DE, for Defendants Armstrong and Freebery.
Ronald L. Stoner, Ronald Stoner, P.A., Newark, DE, for Defendant Armstrong.
Robert C. McDonald, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant Freebery.
Plaintiff Pamela A. Couden ("Pamela") and her six children, Adam R. Couden ("Adam"), Tiffany A. Couden ("Tiffany"), Nicholas M. Couden ("Nicholas"), Jordan T. Couden ("Jordan"), Luke J. Couden ("Luke") and Micah J. Couden ("Micah") ("plaintiffs" collectively) filed this action on April 10, 2003 alleging civil rights and tort violations against FBI Special Agent Scott Duffey ("Duffey"),1 New Castle County Police Officers James C. Armstrong ("Armstrong") and Jay Freebery ("Freebery"), and Wilmington Police Officer Liam Sullivan ("Sullivan") ("defendants" collectively).2 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the district court granted in their favor.3 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.4 Defendants now seek summary judgment based on new discovery that the Third Circuit did not consider.5
Plaintiffs filed this action on April 10, 2003 claiming defendants violated their constitutional rights during two separate incidents on April 12, 2001. Plaintiffs allege that their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated and accordingly filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 19836 against Armstrong, Freebery and Sullivan, the state actors, and a parallel Bivens claim7 against the federal actor, Duffey. Under their Fourth Amendment claims,8 plaintiffs allege that defendants unlawfully searched the Couden residence, wrongfully seized six of the seven plaintiffs, and used excessive force against Adam.9 Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failing to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. This court considered all motions as motions for summary judgment, and granted judgment to all defendants.10 On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed as to plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against Armstrong, Freebery and Sullivan and as to plaintiffs' Bivens claim against Duffey, finding that this court failed to consider the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving plaintiffs.11 Based on further discovery, defendants again seek summary judgment.
Construing the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party,12 that is, plaintiffs, the relevant facts are as follows. On April 12, 2001, defendants, as part of the Joint Violent Crime Fugitive Task Force ("Task Force"), were conducting surveillance on Sanford Drive, the street where plaintiffs reside. Defendants received information that a wanted fugitive might be at 7 Sanford Drive, two houses from plaintiffs' residence. `Duffey and Sullivan were stationed in one vehicle, while Armstrong and Freebery were in another, keeping a lookout for the suspect.
That same evening, Pamela drove Adam to a skateboard shop. Nicholas, Jordan, Luke and Micah were also in the car. Upon their return home, Pamela parked the car on Argyle Street, where Armstrong and Freebery were located. Argyle Street runs perpendicular to Sanford Drive and abuts the side yard of plaintiffs' residence. Pamela stopped the car on Argyle Street to give Adam easy access to the garage. Adam testified that after he left the vehicle, he walked at a normal pace directly to the garage, and did not stop and peer into the rear sliding glass door of the house. The entire time, the headlights of plaintiffs' car remained on.
Adam testified that he entered the garage through a back door, and left his skateboard on a work bench. He could see his sister, Tiffany, inside the house through the window of a locked door which led from the garage to the kitchen. Adam attempted, but was unable to catch Tiffany's attention to ask her to join the family for dinner.
When Adam did not immediately return from the garage, Pamela drove onto Sanford Drive to the front of her home, pulled the car into the driveway of the residence, put the car's high beams on and honked the horn.
Armstrong and Freebery, from their location on Argyle Drive, witnessed those events as they occurred. Based on their observations, the "officers believed that they were witnessing a burglary in progress. They noticed a vehicle stopped on a side street adjacent to a house, from which a single individual exited and proceeded toward the side-rear area of the house. The officers testified that the individual crept towards the house in a suspicious manner, hunched over, and peered into various windows, prompting them to investigate.
While waiting in the driveway, Pamela noticed a man approaching her car, who was pointing a gun at her. At the time, she did not realize that the individual was Armstrong. When the man reached the driver's side door and attempted to open it, Pamela shifted into drive, accelerated, swerved to avoid hitting the garage and a tree, and drove to a neighbor's house. During this process, she observed another individual throw an object at her vehicle which shattered one of its windows. That individual was Freebery, who attempted to disrupt her escape and avoid being struck by throwing his flashlight at the car.
Meanwhile, as Adam exited the back door of the garage he was met by two armed men, who were wearing jeans, sweatshirts and caps. Adam struggled with one of the men at the back door and successfully locked himself inside the garage. After hearing repeated shouts of "FBI, let me in," Adam was apprehended at the door which leads from the garage into the kitchen. Although Adam cannot identify the individuals who apprehended him, he testified that several males forced him to the ground, put guns against his temples, sprayed him with mace, handcuffed him and kept him in a prone position with a knee in his back. Adam does not state that he actually saw any weapons or mace. He denied experiencing any side effects typically associated with mace. Adam recalled three men present, who identified themselves as police officers. He testified that he was handcuffed for at least five to ten minutes.
Tiffany, who was, inside the house, noticed a man brandishing a firearm while trying to open one of the sliding glass doors. He identified himself as a police officer, and showed Tiffany his badge. The man was wearing a gray sweatshirt, jeans and a cap. Tiffany allowed the officer inside. The officer informed Tiffany that a robber was in the house. Tiffany told the officer that she was alone. At that point, the first officer held Tiffany with his arm as another officer entered and began to search the house. From the garage area, Tiffany heard someone say "we got one in here," which caused the officer searching the house to head towards the garage.
Tiffany testified that two officers were on top of Adam as he lay on the ground, with their guns against his head, while another officer knelt in front of Adam and sprayed him with mace. The fourth officer remained by her side holding her back with his arm. The officer who previously searched the house was the officer spraying the mace.
Duffey maintains that the Fourth Amendment claims asserted against him by the occupants of the vehicle should be dismissed because there is no evidence that he violated their rights.
Duffey argues that he is not liable for the conduct of Armstrong, Freebery or Sullivan simply because he was the coordinator of the Task Force. Duffey claims that no one acted under his personal direction; he had no knowledge of the other defendants' actions; and he did not acquiesce to their conduct. Therefore, Duffey claims that plaintiffs cannot establish the requisite personal involvement necessary to sustain a civil rights action.
Duffey propounds that Tiffany has no cause of action against him because her constitutional rights were never violated. Duffey maintains that defendants had the probable cause and exigent circumstances necessary to conduct a warrantless search of the house. Duffey further points out that Tiffany was only held for her own protection, conduct which does not arise to a constitutional violation.
Duffey argues that Adam's claim of being mated should be dismissed in the absence of any evidence that mace was ever used. Duffey claims that Tiffany and Adam's assertions that mace was used are mere assumptions unsupported by sufficient evidence.
Duffey also relies on qualified immunity as a basis for;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Couden v. Duffey
...in their vehicle and Adam Couden's claim that Armstrong and two other officers used excessive force to arrest him.Couden v. Duffey, 533 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D. Del. 2008). However, the District Court granted summary judgment as to the claim that Freebery used excessive force when he threw his f......