Day v. City of Indianapolis

Decision Date13 May 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 1:17-cv-04612-TWP-TAB
Citation380 F.Supp.3d 812
Parties Shanika DAY Individually, and as the Administrator for the Estate of Terrell Day, and Harvey Morgan Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, Franklin Wooten Sergeant, Individually, and as an IMPD Officer, and Randall Denny Officer, Individually, and as an IMPD Officer, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

Faith Elizabeth Alvarez, Nathaniel Lee, Lee Cossel & Crowley LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.

Adam Scott Willfond, Andrew J. Upchurch, Anne Celeste Harrigan, Office of Corporation Counsel City of Indianapolis, Andrew R. Duncan, Edward J. Merchant, John F. Kautzman, Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 51) filed by Defendants City of Indianapolis ("Indianapolis"), Sergeant Franklin Wooten ("Sergeant Wooten"), and Officer Randall Denny ("Officer Denny") (collectively, "Defendants"). After Terrell Day ("Day") died while in the custody of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD"), Shanika Day, his mother and the Administrator of his estate, and Harvey Morgan, Day's father (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), brought this suit alleging unreasonable seizure and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, negligence under Indiana law, and loss of child's services (Filing No. 19). Defendants argue the undisputed evidence shows that neither officer violated Day's constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Plaintiffs' state law claims fail as a matter of law. (Filing No. 53 at 7.) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part .

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the facts are presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the non-moving party. See Zerante v. DeLuca , 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

The facts of this case begin with a confrontation between Day, an eighteen-year-old with a medical history of obesity

, and Michael Nesbitt ("Nesbitt"), a loss-prevention officer at a Burlington Coat Factory ("Burlington") located in Washington Square Mall in Indianapolis, Indiana. On September 26, 2015, Nesbitt observed Day, and a friend enter Burlington on the store's surveillance cameras. (Filing No. 52-8 at 10.) Nesbitt believed that he recognized Day as an individual he had observed stealing from the store on two prior occasions. Id. at 8-9, 41. On both prior occasions, Nesbitt had asked Day to leave the store and said he would be arrested if he returned. Id. at 8.While watching the stores surveillance video, Nesbitt believed he saw Day pick up a watch, put it in his pocket, and exit the store. Id. at 10. He followed Day out of the store to confront him about the watch and radioed mall security. Nesbitt was soon joined by mall security officer Anna Mahoy ("Mahoy") in the mall common area. Day first denied having taken anything from Burlington, but ultimately returned a watch to Nesbitt. Id. Nesbitt requested that Day return to the store, but Day refused and began to walk away. (Filing No. 52-9 at 10.)

Nesbitt and Mahoy's testimony differ vastly as to what happened next. Mahoy testified that she noticed the handle of what looked like a gun sticking out of Day's pocket, but she never observed him point or remove a gun, instead he just returned the watch and disagreed with returning to the story and he ran. Id. at 12. Nesbitt alleges that Day removed a gun from his pocket and pointed it at him, pushed Day and took cover, and Day began "running through the mall with the gun in his hand." (Filing No. 52-8 at 13.)

Nesbitt called 911 and reported the events to the operator. Id. While on the telephone with the 911 dispatcher, Nesbitt alleges that he observed Day unsuccessfully attempt to carjack two vehicles. Id. at 17-20. Mahoy's recollection of events again differs—she testified that Nesbitt chased Day out of the mall and across the parking lot toward Mitthoeffer Road and then, when Day changed course, toward 10th Street.1 (Filing No. 52-9 at 14-17.) Mahoy did mention Day attempting to carjack anyone during her deposition.2

Nesbitt continued to chase Day into the parking lot of a Speedway gas station until Day slipped and fell on a grassy downslope (Filing No. 52-8 at 21-22.) As Day laid in the grass behind the Speedway, law enforcement arrived on the scene. Cumberland Police Department ("CPD") reserve officer John Covington ("Officer Covington") was the first officer to arrive in response to a radio call of an armed shoplifter running from the Burlington store across 10th Street to the Speedway gas station. (Filing No. 52-2 at 7.) Officer Covington encountered Nesbitt in the Speedway parking lot, and Nesbitt pointed out Day's location—laying on his back on the grassy slope just north of the gas station. (Filing No. 52-5 at 10-11.) Officer Covington parked his vehicle just east of the Speedway station, three or four car-lengths south of Day. Id. at 11-12. Believing Day was armed, Officer Covington drew his firearm and exited his police cruiser. Id. at 12. Day was on his stomach with his arms out to the side or to the top. Id. At 8. While waiting for other officers to arrive, Officer Covington ordered Day to show his hands and to point to his gun, which was no longer on his person. Id. at 13. Day complied with both orders, pointing out a gun in the grass, which was out of his reach. Id. , Filing No. 52-2 at 8. Officer Covington kept Day "under cover" until Officer Denny arrived on the scene, (Filing No. 52-2 at 8). Officer Covington then exited his vehicle, approached Day on foot. Day showed his hands and complied with the officer's orders.

Officer Denny placed Day in a single set of chain handcuffs. Id. at 9, 16. While handcuffing Day, Officer Denny observed that Day was overweight, sweating, and breathing heavily. Id. at 16, 18. Officer Denny repositioned Day so that he was "sitting on his behind" at the top of the slope with his legs out in front of him and his hands cuffed behind his back. Id. at 10. Day informed the officers that he was having trouble breathing. Id. at 13. Officer Denny told Day that he had exerted himself by running and that he should take deep breaths in and out to slow his heart rate. Id. Officer Denny did not observe any signs of distress, and never observed that Day was having trouble breathing.

Officer Denny instructed Day to remain seated upright in the position he had put him, believing that would be most comfortable for Day while the officers completed the investigation and effected the arrest. Id. at 79. Officer Denny preferred this position because, while it is comfortable for the detainee, it also makes it difficult for the detainee to stand because his hands are cuffed behind his back. Id. at 80. The next best position for the detainee, in Officer Denny's opinion, was to be lying on his side or back. Id. Officer Denny was aware of the risks posed by a standing detainee—that he could flee or attack the officers—because he had dealt with uncooperative detainees in the past. Id. at 80, 87-89.

As Officer Denny repositioned Day, he noticed that Day had defecated on himself. Id. at 10. Under the circumstances, Officer Denny believed that Day had over-exerted himself. Id. at 86-88. Day was unable to follow Officer Denny's instructions about how to position himself while he was detained and in handcuffs. When Officer Denny moved Day so that he was seated upright, Day laid back onto his back and rolled down the slope a bit. Id. at 92-93. As he started to roll, Officer Denny sat him back up in the middle of the slope with his legs out in front of him. Id. Wary that Day could asphyxiate himself if he rolled onto his stomach, Officer Denny reprimanded Day to remain in an upright seated position. Id. at 10-11. Day did not heed Officer Denny's instructions and rolled down the rest of the hill to where the grass met the pavement. Id. at 11. At that point, Officer Denny decided the best course of action was to have Day lie down on his side. Id. at 93.

Shortly after Officer Denny detained Day, Sergeant Wooten arrived on the scene to assist. Id. at 100. As the arresting officer, Officer Denny had investigative duties that precluded him from personally monitoring Day after initially detaining him. Id. at 89-90. Sergeant Wooten or a CPD officer remained near Day to monitor him from that point forward. Id. at 78; Filing No. 52-4 at 58-59. The last law enforcement officer to arrive on the scene was CPD Lieutenant Roger Waggoner.

Sergeant Wooten observed Day roll from his side onto his stomach. (Filing No. 52-3 at 32.) Sergeant Wooten and the other officers repositioned Day several times when he attempted to roll onto his stomach. Id. at 56; Filing No. 52-2 at 94. Day complained to Sergeant Wooten that he could not breathe. (Filing No. 52-3 at 31-33.) Sergeant Wooten was skeptical of Day's complaints because Day also stated that he had done nothing wrong and was asking for the officers to let him go. Id. Sergeant Wooten called for an ambulance to evaluate Day approximately five minutes after Day was initially detained. Id. at 31; Filing No. 52-2 at 13. As Sergeant Wooten observed him, Day appeared to calm down and began to breathe normally. (Filing No. 52-3 at 31.)

The ambulance, staffed by Douglas York ("York"), a paramedic, and James Brown ("Brown"), an emergency medical technician, arrived within several minutes. (Filing No. 52-6 at 14-15; Filing No. 52-14.) When York and Brown first encountered Day, he was lying on his back with his hands cuffed behind him. (Filing No. 52-6 at 21-22; Filing No....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Wynn v. City of Indianapolis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • 26 Octubre 2020
    ...City can proceed even without considering Chief Taylor's and Deputy Chief Adams's actions.6 Defendants cite Day v. City of Indianapolis , 380 F. Supp. 3d 812, 829 (S.D. Ind. 2019), rev'd and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Day v. Wooten , 947 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2020), for the proposition......
  • Day v. Wooten, 19-1930
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 10 Enero 2020
    ...Haupert , 481 F.3d at 549 n.2. Accordingly, we accept the district court’s statement of facts. See Day v. City of Indianapolis , 380 F. Supp. 3d 812, 817–21 (S.D. Ind. 2019). In a few instances, which we note, we look to undisputed evidence not included in the district court’s order but pro......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT