Crawford v. Geiger

• Decision Date: 22 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:13cv1883.
• Citation: 131 F.Supp.3d 703
• Parties: Mark A. CRAWFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donavin L. GEIGER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

131 F.Supp.3d 703

Mark A. CRAWFORD, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Donavin L. GEIGER, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:13cv1883.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Filed Sept. 22, 2015.

Thomas A. Sobecki, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel T. Downey, Frank D. Hatfield, Fishel Hass Kim Albrecht, Morgan Arnett Linn, Office of the Attorney General, Rachel O. Huston, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, OH, Diane W. French, Allen County Sheriff Department, Anthony L. Geiger, Department of Law, Lima, OH, Jane M. Lynch, Jared A. Wagner, Green & Green, Dayton, OH, for Defendants.

JAMES G. CARR

, Senior District Judge.

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. Following a nighttime encounter with law enforcement officers from several agencies, plaintiffs seek damages for violations of their First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Pending are plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint, (Doc. 80), and defendants' motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 66, 67, 69, 77). For the reasons that follow: 1) I deny plaintiffs' motion; and 2) I grant defendants' motions in part and deny them in part.

Background

The parties vigorously dispute the facts of this case. For the purposes of summary judgment, however, I accept plaintiffs' version of the facts as true. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 456, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992)

.

The events giving rise to this suit occurred during the night of August 26, 2012. (Doc. 72 at 60–61; Doc. 81–2 ¶ 2). Plaintiff Mark Crawford's mother, Jane Crawford, called him from her home to tell him she thought she heard someone breaking into an adjacent warehouse she owned. (Doc. 62 at 29–36). She asked Crawford to come investigate. (Id. ).

Crawford, arming himself with a shotgun and pistol, and his nephew, plaintiff Brendon Reed, arming himself with a semi-automatic rifle, started the short drive to the warehouse in Crawford's pickup truck. (Doc. 70 at 28–32, 86–87, 233–34; Doc. 71 at 65–66, 70–74, 79, 109, 166–71). In the meantime, Crawford's sister (also Reed's mother), plaintiff Debra Ornelas, reported the suspected break-in to a 911 dispatcher. (Doc. 65 at 21–22; Doc. 72 at 73). Crawford and Reed were unaware she had done so. (Doc. 72 at 87–88).

Shortly thereafter, defendant Allen County, Ohio, Sheriff's Deputy Donavin Geiger, responding to the dispatcher's broadcast about the suspected break-in, arrived at the location. (Doc. 72 at 82–83). He spoke briefly with Ornelas, ordering her to return to the house and stay there. (Id. at 94–96).

Crawford drove to the rear of the building "dynamically," turning on the truck's bright lights and making loud noises to scare away any intruders. (Doc. 71 at 112–13).

When Crawford and Reed arrived, a spotlight blinded them. (Doc. 71 at 115–17; Doc. 70 at 45). Neither knew who was shining the light at them; they assumed it was someone trying to break into the warehouse. (Doc. 71 at 115–17; Doc. 70 at 45).

They got out of the truck and aimed their weapons in the direction of the spotlight. (Doc. 71 at 116–17; Doc. 70 at 153, 232–33). Crawford immediately identified himself as the property owner,¹ stated he was armed, and demanded the unknown person identify himself because he was trespassing. (Doc. 70 at 53). He repeated that information several times. (Id. ). Crawford also asserted he was lawfully armed under the "Castle Doctrine." (Doc. 70 at 52).

Crawford did not realize the darkness and blinding spotlight concealed not a burglar, but Deputy Geiger. (Id. at 54). Deputy Geiger had surreptitiously approached the rear of the warehouse with his canine partner, hoping to catch any burglars by surprise. (Doc. 72 at 81–82; Doc. 73 at 39–40). As the encounter began, he was the only law enforcement officer present. (Doc. 73 at 146–47; Doc. 63 at 17–19).

Without identifying himself or his office, Deputy Geiger demanded Crawford and Reed "put [their] guns on the fucking ground." (Doc. 70 at 46, 52–54, 61–62). He threatened to shoot them "in the fucking head" if they did not comply. (Id. at 46). He continued to fail to identify himself or state he was a police officer. (Id. at 63). Unaware who the trespasser was and being threatened with being shot, Crawford and Reed stood fast, guns trained on the perceived threat. (Id. ).

The stand-off lasted roughly thirty to forty seconds. (Doc. 70 at 63; Doc. 71 at 120–21).

At some point, Crawford heard the sound of radio traffic. (Id. ). Having served in the military and as a corrections officer, he realized the person confronting him might be a police officer. (Id. ). He put his shotgun on the ground and told Reed to do the same with his rifle. (Id. at 62; Doc. 71 at 128–30). Reed complied. (Doc. 71 at 128–30). Crawford and Reed then stepped back from their guns and put their hands in the air. (Doc. 81–1 ¶ 2; Doc. 70 at 62–63, 69).

Crawford still wore a holstered pistol on his side. (Doc. 70 at 68). He did not remove it because "[n]o one ever touches a gun when an officer, when you have officers showed up. No one ever touches a gun, you never go near a weapon or touch anything." (Id. at 68). Further, Deputy Geiger never ordered him to remove his pistol. (Id. at 70–71).

At about this time, Ornelas, having heard a commotion, came from the house to find out what was happening. (Doc. 72 at 111–12). She immediately told Deputy Geiger that Crawford and Reed were the owner's son and grandson. (Id. ). Deputy Geiger ignored Ornelas. (Id. ). He made no effort to verify her statements. (Id. ).

Many other officers soon arrived,² including defendants Allen County Sheriff's Deputies Roy Brock and Cory Lee; Elida, Ohio, Village Police Department Officer Jesse Evilsizer; Ohio State Highway Patrol Troopers Robert Gatchel and Daniel Edelbrock; and Lima, Ohio, City Police Sergeant Nicholas Hart (collectively, along with Deputy Geiger, the "on-scene officers").³ (Doc. 70 at 71).

Deputy Geiger continued pointing his light in Crawford's eyes, yelling expletives and threatening to shoot him. (Id. at 71). Deputy Geiger ordered Crawford to get on the ground. (Id. at 76, 80). Instead, Crawford kept his hands in the air and, to confirm his impression that Deputy Geiger might be a law enforcement officer, continued asking him to identify himself. (Id. at 69).

Deputy Geiger then ordered Crawford to put his hands on the truck. (Id. at 75). Crawford complied. (Id. ). Deputy Geiger, twenty years younger and 100 pounds heavier than Crawford, immediately slammed Crawford's head onto the truck's hood, placing all his weight on Crawford's neck and pinning him down. (Id. at 79, 89–90). Officer Evilsizer then helped Deputy Geiger handcuff Crawford. (Id. at 93, 208–12).

As they were doing so, Crawford told Reed and Ornelas to take out their cell phones and record the officers' actions. (Id. at 89–90; Doc. 71 at 133, 139).

Ornelas had no cell phone with her. (Doc. 72 at 183). Nonetheless, Sergeant Hart ran up to her and struck her chest with the heel of his palm, knocking her off balance and against the truck bed. (Id. at 118, 145–47). Shortly thereafter, Deputy Lee grabbed her, twisted her arm behind her back, handcuffed her and put her on the ground. (Id. at 120; Doc. 71 at 187).

Sergeant Hart then turned his attention to Reed, who was reaching for a cell phone at his hip. (Doc. 64 at 139–40). Sergeant Hart took him to the ground, forcing his knees into Reed's back. (Doc. 71 at 182–88). Sergeant Hart, with Deputy Lee's assistance, handcuffed Reed. (Doc. 74 at 29). Troopers Gatchel and Edelbrock then lifted Reed off the ground and took him to a patrol car. (Id. at 142).

Deputies also placed Ornelas and Crawford into patrol cars. Officers drove the three plaintiffs to the Allen County Jail. (Doc. 70 at 121; Doc. 71 at 158; Doc. 72 at 121). They remained confined for several hours before their release. (Id. ).

On August 26, 2013, plaintiffs sued the on-scene officers. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs also sued the heads of the various agencies employing the on-scene officers (collectively, the "supervisory officers"), and Allen County, the City of Lima, and the Village of Elida (collectively, the "governmental entities"). (Id. ).

Plaintiffs asserted several claims for relief: 1) Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment unreasonable use of force; 2) Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment failure to intervene; 3) Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment unlawful arrest and detention; 4) First/Fourteenth Amendment right to film and record; 5) Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy; 6) assault and battery under Ohio law; 7) false arrest and detention under Ohio law; and 8) supervisory and derivative government entity liability. (Id. ).

Various defendants filed motions to dismiss some of or all the claims against them. (Docs. 30, 33, 34). For the reasons set forth in Crawford v. Deputy Geiger, 996 F.Supp.2d 603 (N.D.Ohio 2014)

, I granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing the supervisory officials and governmental entities from the case entirely, and dismissing some claims as to certain other defendants.

The remaining defendants—Deputies Geiger, Lee and Brock, Officer Evilsizer, Sergeant Hart, and Troopers Gatchel and Edelbrock—now seek summary judgment on the surviving claims. (Docs. 66, 67, 69, 77).

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56

where the opposing party fails to show the existence of an essential element for which the party bears the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The movant must initially show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

Once the movant meets that initial burden, the "burden shifts to the nonmoving party [to] set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)

. Rule 56"requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the [unverified] pleadings" and submit admissible evidence supporting...