Daugherty v. Hurst
| Decision Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-72-TFM-C |
| Citation | 491 F.Supp.3d 1214 |
| Parties | Shunty DAUGHERTY, individually and as the administrator of the estate of Michael Dashawn Moore, Plaintiff, v. Harold HURST, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
John Michael Shoreman, Pro Hac Vice, McFadden & Shoreman, Washington, DC, Mario Bernard Williams, Pro Hac Vice, Dallas S. LePierre, Pro Hac Vice, NDH LLC, Julie Oinonen Oinonen, Pro Hac Vice, Williams Oinonen LLC, Atlanta, GA, Jessica N. Sherman-Stoltz, Pro Hac Vice, Nexus Caridades Attorneys, Inc., Verona, VA, for Plaintiff.
Thomas O. Gaillard, III, Patrick Conor Finnegan, William W. Watts, III, Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, Newman & Rouse, P.C., Mobile, AL, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court are Defendant Harry Hurst's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 158, filed October 4, 2019) and Defendant City of Mobile's Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 160, filed October 4, 2019). The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for review. Having considered the motions and relevant law, the Court finds Defendant Hurst's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 158) is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Defendant City of Mobile's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 160) is due to be GRANTED .
Plaintiff Shunta Daugherty filed her complaint both individually and as the administrator of the estate of Michael Dashawn Moore against Defendants City of Mobile and Harry Hurst1 in his individual capacity arising from the death of her son during a traffic stop.
The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) as Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and there are adequate allegations to support both.
On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff Shunta Daugherty ("Plaintiff") filed her original complaint against Defendant Harry Hurst ("Officer Hurst"). See Doc. 1. Plaintiff asserted three counts in the original complaint: (1) allegations of a Fourth Amendment violation brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (2) wrongful death pursuant to Ala. Code. § 6-5-410 ; and (3) negligence pursuant to Alabama state law. Id. Officer Hurst appeared and answered the complaint on April 7, 2017. See Doc. 11.
On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint, which the Court granted. See Docs. 70, 71. The Amended Complaint was docketed on June 21, 2018. See Doc. 74. Plaintiff added as defendants the City of Mobile ("the City") and the University of South Alabama Medical Center ("the Medical Center") and asserts five separate counts as follows: (1) a Fourth Amendment violation brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Hurst in his official and individual capacities; (2) wrongful death pursuant to Ala. Code. § 6-5-410 against Officer Hurst in his official and individual capacities; (3) negligence pursuant to Alabama state law against Officer Hurst in his individual capacity; (4) negligent Retention against the City; (5) unskillfulness of Hurst against the City; and (6) spoliation against the Medical Center. Id. The City filed its answer on July 27, 2018. See Doc. 84. The Medical Center filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), to which the Plaintiff responded was unopposed. See Docs. 89, 90, 99. Consequently, the Medical Center was dismissed as a defendant and Count VI for spoliation was dismissed. See Docs. 100, 101. Therefore, the only defendants remaining were Officer Hurst and the City and the only claims remaining were Counts I through V.
After discovery concluded, on October 4, 2019, the City and Officer Hurst filed their respective motions for summary judgment. See Docs. 158, 159, 160, 161. Plaintiff timely responded and Defendants timely replied. See Docs. 167, 168, 173, 174.
Additionally, in conjunction with the summary judgment briefing, both parties filed certain objections to evidence submitted as well as Defendants’ motion filed pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993). See Docs. 169, 175, 178. The Court previously ruled on those evidentiary motions on September 15, 2020. See Docs. 202, 203.
The case results from the shooting and subsequent death of Michael Dashawn Moore ("Moore") by Officer Hurst. Plaintiff alleges the following facts in her Amended Complaint and response to summary judgment. See Docs. 74, 167. Of note, there is no video of the traffic stop or shooting. The only video available is several minutes later from responding officers reporting to the scene.
On June 13, 2016, Moore, went to play basketball at the Springhill Rec Center. Afterwards, Moore and two friends, Mark Amos ("Amos") and Robert Blackmon ("Blackmon"), rode around the City of Mobile in a white Lexus. Officer Harry Hurst ("Officer Hurst") was a Mobile Police Department Officer who was on his way into work. Eventually, Officer Hurst activated his blue lights to initiate a traffic stop of the white Lexus. The Lexus pulled into the driveway of an office on the south side of Wagner Street. Officer Hurst pulled up behind the Lexus, got out of the patrol car, and walked up to the Lexus on the passenger side of the vehicle. Moore was the driver of the vehicle while Amos was in the front passenger seat and Blackmon was in the back seat. Officer Hurst requested Moore's license and registration, and Moore verbally gave a driver's license number.
Officer Hurst went back to his patrol vehicle. According to Officer Hurst, at this point, he called police dispatch to provide the location of the traffic stop and the Lexus’ tag number. Officer Hurst heard the dispatcher put out a radio request for an officer to back Hurst up for a possible Code 29. At this point, Officer Hurst indicates he ran the Lexus tag in the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC"), which indicated a stolen vehicle report submitted by MPD Officer Demetrius Watts. Officer Hurst also ran the tag number in the Law Enforcement Tactical System ("LETS"), which displayed the photograph of the vehicle's owner, an older white male that clearly was not Moore, a younger black male. Officer Hurst also said he ran the driver's license number that Moore had recited, and the result displayed a photograph of the holder of the license was another white male (different from the vehicle owner).
Dispatch was having difficulty securing back up for Officer Hurst as the time of day was at shift change and at the end of the business workday. Officer Hurst then got out of his patrol car, drew his service weapon, and approached the driver's side of the Lexus. Officer Hurst then ordered Moore out of the vehicle.
At this stage, the facts become heavily disputed. Plaintiff alleges Moore stepped out of the vehicle with a cell phone in his hand, moved towards the front of the Lexus, and once there he faced Hurst with his hands raised in the air. Plaintiff acknowledges that even their witness testimony varies – some witnesses say there was not a gun on Moore while others say a gun was tucked in his shorts, but that he never reached for the weapon. Some also acknowledge that Moore stepped back as if he stumbled or prepared to run. Then Officer Hurst shot Moore despite the fact Moore did not reach for a weapon with his hands still in the air. After Moore fell to the ground, Officer Hurst shot him again.
Officer Hurst tells a very different version of events. Though the Court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court will still articulate Officer Hurst's version of events to provide context for this legal dispute.3 Officer Hurst alleges that Moore exited and faced the vehicle with his hands extended above the roof with a cell phone in one hand. Officer Hurst then ordered him to put his cell phone down. When Moore bent to put the cell phone down, Officer Hurst noticed Moore had a pistol tucked into his shorts. Officer Hurst told Moore he saw the gun and directed him not to reach for it. As Moore straightened up, he paused while his back was to Officer Hurst. Moore then broke away and spun around rapidly with his hands at chest level. Officer Hurst says he lost sight of Moore's hand for a moment. Officer Hurst then saw Moore's right hand move towards his waist. Officer Hurst fired several shots, and Moore fell backwards. Officer Hurst shouted for Moore to put his hands behind his head, but Moore did not comply. Rather, Moore moved his hand towards his waist where Officer Hurst had seen the gun tucked in his shorts. Officer Hurst believed his life was in danger and fired a final shot. After the final shot, Officer Hurst trained his service weapon on Amos and Blackmon and ordered them to keep their hands where he could see them. Officer Hurst then contacted dispatch, repeated his request for backup, and indicated an officer-involved shooting.
Mobile Police officer Ophelia Weathington ("Officer Weathington") responded to the dispatch call for back up for an officer-involved shooting and activated her body camera. Officer Weathington was the first to arrive on the scene approximately two to three minutes later. At Officer Hurst's request, she secured Amos and Blackmon by training her service weapon on them and telling them to keep their hands up. Officer Hurst rolled Moore onto his stomach and handcuffed his hands behind his back. Officer Hurst, along with Officer Weathington and Officer Deadre Portis (who had just arrived), moved Amos and Blackmon from the Lexus, handcuffed them, and placed them in separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Turner v. Allstate Ins. Co., CIV. ACT. NO. 2:13-cv-685-ECM
-
Wilson v. Stewart
...by qualified immunity, the government official must first demonstrate that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority.” Id. Harbert Int'l, Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 1998)). Here, the parties do not dispute that Defendants Mason and Johnson were acting ......