Curran v. Aleshire

• Decision Date: 16 December 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 09–2993.
• Parties: April CURRAN, et al. v. Philip ALESHIRE, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

67 F.Supp.3d 741

April CURRAN, et al.

v.Philip ALESHIRE, et al.

Civil Action No. 09–2993.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed Dec. 16, 2014.

Charles M. Hughes, Jr., Ryan G. Davis, Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, LLC, Mandeville, LA, for Defendants Phillip Aleshire and Rodney Jack Strain.

Harry Platton Pastuszek, Jr., Pastuszek & Associates, David S. Pittman, Attorney at Law, Shane A. Jordan, Harry P. Pastuszek, Jr. & Associates, LLC, Covington, LA, for Defendants St. Tammany Parish School Board, Gayle Sloan and Johnny Vitrano.

ORDER AND REASONS

JAY C. ZAINEY, District Judge.

Before the Court are a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the claims of April Curran filed by defendants Philip Aleshire and Sheriff Rodney Strain, individually and in his official capacity (Rec. Doc. 44) (“Aleshire” and “the Sheriff”); a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the “non-consortium” claims of Colleen Curran filed by defendants Philip Aleshire and Sheriff Rodney Strain, individually and in his official capacity (Rec. Doc. 45); and a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the claims of April Curran and Colleen Curran filed by defendants St. Tammany Parish School Board, Gayle Sloan, individually and in her official capacity, and Johnny Vitrano, individually and in his official capacity (Rec. Doc. 46). Plaintiffs filed a single Opposition to all motions (Rec. Doc. 48) .¹

I. Background²

This suit arises out of incidents taking place at Fontainebleau High School (“Fontainebleau”) on September 24, 2008. Plaintiff April Curran (“April”), then a fifteen year-old student at Fontainebleau, attempted to use her cell phone after her morning classes while on school grounds to get a ride to the New Orleans Center for the Creative Arts after missing her bus. This violated Fontainebleau's rule regarding cell phones on campus. A teacher, observing this behavior and seeking to enforce the rule, approached April to determine her name and to confiscate her cellphone. After April refused to comply, the teacher requested Officer Aleshire's help in enforcing the rule.

At this point, there is a conflict among the parties in the recounting of events. April reports that Aleshire yanked her student ID hanging around her neck, grabbed her, and slammed her against the auditorium wall. (Rec. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 10–11). He then forced her arms behind her back and handcuffed her. Id. at ¶ 11. However, while April denies striking Aleshire during this first incident (Rec. Doc. 44–5 at 3),³ the state court adjudicated her delinquent for battery of a police officer. See, e.g., (Rec. Doc. 44–5, at 5). Thus, it is a judicially established fact that April committed a battery of Aleshire during this first incident. This battery occurred prior to April being thrown against the auditorium wall. (Rec. Doc. 48, at 10; Rec. Doc. 44–6, ¶¶ 10–13).

Aleshire then led April to Assistant Principal Kevin Darouse's office, room # 402 (“room 402”). During this walk, Aleshire at one point shoved April against a bank of lockers, at which point her cell phone fell out of her shirt. (Rec. Doc. 484).

The school contacted Colleen Curran (“Colleen”), April's mother, to come get her. While waiting, April complained of pain caused by the handcuffs. Kevin Darouse instructed Aleshire to remove the handcuffs, which he did. (Rec. Doc. 48–6, ¶ 16).

Colleen, upon her arrival, requested medical attention for her daughter, but the school declined to provide any. (Rec. Doc. 48–6, ¶ 18). April and Colleen left the school and proceeded to a nearby hospital where April was treated for “forearm abrasions from the handcuffs, and a head contusion.” Id. at ¶ 19.⁴ Aleshire arrived shortly thereafter at the hospital, informed her that she was being charged with battery of an officer, and then departed. (Rec. Doc. 48–6, ¶ 21).

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 4, 2009. (Rec. Doc. 1). The matter was stayed pending resolution of the state juvenile proceedings, including appeal, and was reopened on January 6, 2014.

April brought the following claims under federal and state law (where applicable): against Phillip Aleshire for battery, assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, unlawful search and seizure, cruel treatment, and failing to provide medical attention; against St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office⁵ for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision of Aleshire, and an official policy or custom of ignoring complaints against its employees and of performing no investigation or grossly defective investigation of such complaints; against Sheriff Strain, individually and in his official capacity, under vicarious liability for the acts of Aleshire, negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision of Aleshire, and deliberate indifference to all of these acts concerning Aleshire; against the St. Tammany Parish School Board (“STPSB”) for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision of Aleshire, Vitrano, and its other employees, an official policy or custom of ignoring complaints against its employees and of performing no investigation or grossly defective investigations of such complaints, and its official policy or custom of prohibiting the mere possession of cell phones by students; against Gayle Sloan, individually and in her official capacity as Superintendent of the St. Tammany Parish School Board, under vicarious liability for the acts of Aleshire, the negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision of Aleshire, Vitrano, and other school personnel, and deliberate indifference to all of those acts concerning Aleshire; and the same claims against Johnny Vitrano, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of Fontainebleau High School.

Both April Curran as well as Colleen Curran seek a variety of damages, including those related to physical needs, emotional suffering, consortium and related claims, and punitive damages.

As several of these claims overlap, the Court will address the motions by nature of the claim. The Court will specify where appropriate which motion, claim, and defendant it is addressing and the corresponding specific rulings. It will conclude with a summary of these rulings.

II. Discussion

Summary judgment is appropriate only if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir.2002) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). The court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). Once the moving party has initially shown “that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's cause,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the non-movant must come forward with “specific facts” showing a genuine factual issue for trial. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ). Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir.1993) ).

a. Claims against Aleshire

Defendant Aleshire moves for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims of battery, assault, unlawful search and seizure, cruel treatment, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment. Aleshire first raises the argument that the claims under federal law (via § 1983 ) are barred by the Heck doctrine.

The Heck doctrine bars the Court from entertaining a suit for damages under § 1983 where such claims would necessarily undermine the validity of the state court criminal conviction. See Buckenberger v. Reed, 342 Fed.Appx. 58, 61 (5th Cir.2009) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) ). Thus, Aleshire asserts that allowing these claims to go forward would undermine the validity of April's adjudication for battery of an officer. The Court will address the claims individually, noting the effect of its findings on the claim both under federal law, and, where applicable, state law.

i. Unlawful Search and Seizure

The Court addresses the unlawful search and seizure claim as a separate claim intended to attack the arrest of April Curran for battery of a police officer.

It is true that “a claim of unlawful arrest, standing alone, does not necessarily implicate the validity of a criminal prosecution following the arrest.” Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.1995) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). However, even if April had been able to point to a genuine issue of a disputed material fact in this case, her only arguments regarding the circumstances of her arrest that could give rise to a claim of unlawful search and seizure are insinuations that the battery never took place (e.g., references in the Opposition to the “alleged battery” or “supposedly [Plaintiff] April [Curran] having knocked [Defendant Officer] Aleshire's glasses and radio off”). (Rec. Doc. 48, at 10, 16.)⁶ Thus, a claim of unlawful arrest in this context would necessarily implicate the validity of the criminal conviction and would therefore be barred by Heck.

Therefore, the motion for summary judgment as to April's independent unlawful search and seizure claim against Defendant Aleshire (Rec. Doc. 44) is GRANTED.

ii. Excessive Force, Battery, Assault, Cruel...