Day v. City of Baton Rouge
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-328-EWD (CONSENT) |
| Parties | TRAVIS DAY v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
This case, like several others still pending, arises out of the arrest of a protestor following the police-involved shooting of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in the summer of 2016. The only remaining defendants, The City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge (the "City") and Mayor Sharon Weston Broome, in her official capacity (the "Mayor") (collectively, "Defendants") have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion")1 seeking dismissal of all claims. Travis Day ("Plaintiff") has oppose the Motion,2 and Defendants filed a reply memorandum.3 Oral argument is not necessary. After carefully considering the law, the facts and evidence in the record, and the submissions of the parties,4 the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.5 Almost one hundred pages of briefing and almost one thousand pages of exhibits establish that fact issues preclude summary judgment on most of Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff's operative complaint alleges a municipal liability claim against Defendants under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services6 for purported violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,and Louisiana state law claims, arising from Plaintiff's arrest by several Baton Rouge Police Department ("BRPD") officers on July 9, 2016 during a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in the wake of the July 5, 2016 shooting of Alton Sterling.7 This suit is one of many pending in this Court stemming from the Baton Rouge protests.8
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint names the following defendants: (1) the City; (2) the Mayor; (3) East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Sid Gautreaux; and (4) Nova, the alleged insurer of the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's office.9 The EBRSO Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On April 10, 2019, the Court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against the EBRSO Defendants with prejudice.10 Accordingly, the City and the Mayor are the only remaining defendants; no individual BRPD officers were sued.
Plaintiff alleges that he "was arrested on July 9, 2016, near the intersection of Goodwood Boulevard and Airline Highway for 'simple obstruction of a highway of commerce' while lawfully protesting the shooting death of Mr. Alton Sterling and racist policing in Baton Rouge."11 Plaintiff claims that he was arrested on "false grounds,"12 was "detained in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, subjected to harsh detention conditions," "labeled as a criminal without just cause,"13 and that "[a]s a direct result of Defendants' actions and Plaintiff's arrest," he was terminated from his employment.14 Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated because of the BRPD's "well-settled, inter-related de facto and explicit policies and practices."15 He asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,16 1985(3),17 municipal liability pursuant to Monell,18 and supplemental state law claims.19 As Plaintiff has abandoned his conspiracy-related claims,20 they are no longer before the Court and will not be discussed in this Ruling.
In July 2016, protests occurred in the Baton Rouge area in response to the officer-involved shooting of Alton Sterling. One such protest occurred on July 9, 2016, near BRPD headquarters located at the corner of Goodwood Avenue and Airline Highway.22 Plaintiff attended this protest and arrived around noon.23 There "wasn't many people [protesting] at first."24 He started at the Circle K at the corner of Goodwood Avenue and Airline Highway.25 Plaintiff was standing in the parking lot of Circle K and videotaping the events with his cellphone.26
At some point, Plaintiff moved across Goodwood Avenue and was protesting in the area in front of BRPD Headquarters.27 Plaintiff was not at this location "long" before he saw protestors, including members of the New Black Panther Party, "coming up [Airline] Highway," marching toward BRPD Headquarters "from the mall."28 Some members of the group of protestors "marching" down the southbound lanes of Airline Highway, which included members of the New Black Panther Party, were carrying guns.29 This group of protestors stopped on Airline Highway near BRPD headquarters, still spread across both southbound lanes.30 About that same time, lawenforcement officers blocked off a portion of Airline Highway and stood in the southbound lanes facing the protestors, who were also in the roadway.31
After the arrival of members of the New Black Panther Party, Plaintiff testified that he "wanted to go meet them."32 Plaintiff walked toward the members of the New Black Panther Party and began protesting "alongside" of them.33 Plaintiff testified that he was not holding a sign or participating in any chants led by members of the New Black Panther Party.34 Rather, Plaintiff's chosen form of protest included his presence, videotaping the events with his cellphone, and "talking sh*t" to police.35
Plaintiff was not stationary while protesting in front of BRPD Headquarters. At various times, he was protesting "alongside" or "behind" members of the New Black Panther Party, while he was moving between the grass embankment and the curb along the southbound lanes of Airline Highway at other times.36 Plaintiff's testimony--that he was on the curb (at least at some points)--is corroborated by multiple videos. The curb is at least two feet from the southbound lanes of travel on Airline Highway according to evidence offered by Defendants.37
At one point, Plaintiff was standing in the grass embankment along Airline Highway, facing away from the roadway and videotaping police officers.38 He was again "talking sh*t" topolice officers and called them "b**ch-*ss punk[s]."39 Law enforcement officers began arresting protestors in an effort to clear the roadway, and one officer shoved Plaintiff, who remained in place.40 After the shove, a separate BRPD officer—Officer Jared Neyland—approached Plaintiff from the rear and grabbed Plaintiff, and he and other BRPD officers "brought [Plaintiff] to his knees."41 From there, the BRPD officers, including Officer Neyland and Officer James Thomas, put Plaintiff in the prone position, moved him to the "flat portion" of the grass embankment, removed/lifted him from the ground, handcuffed Plaintiff, and arrested him.42 Plaintiff was then escorted to a bus to wait for processing and transportation to jail.43
Plaintiff was charged with violating La. R.S. § 14:97 using an affidavit of probable cause "template."44 The East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney's office declined to prosecute Plaintiff and dismissed the charges against him.45
Beyond those facts in the preceding section, the parties dispute nearly everything regarding the events of July 9, including: Plaintiff's location preceding and at the time of his arrest, including whether he stepped in the roadway or remained, at most, on the curb; his interaction with law enforcement officers, including those BRPD officers that arrested him; and his subsequent arrest,including whether the officer's had probable cause, whether the force used to arrest him was excessive, and whether he sustained injuries as a result of the force used by BRPD officers.46
Further complicating matters are the numerous photographs and videos showing portions of the protests and Plaintiff's arrest.47 Both sides rely on these videos, each claiming the videos "clearly" show that their version of events is correct. The United State Supreme Court has explained that video evidence can establish the propriety of summary judgment when the non-movant's version of an event was "so utterly discredited" by video evidence "that no reasonably jury could have believed him," such that the court "should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape."48 The Fifth Circuit has described the Scott standard as follows: "a court should not discount the nonmoving party's story unless the video evidence provides so much clarity that a reasonable jury could not believe his account."49 The videos attached as exhibits to the parties' respective submissions do not meet the Scott standard. Specifically, because these videos do not capture the entire incident from start to finish or from a single viewpoint, they donot fully corroborate or contradict the versions of the events advanced by either party. It cannot be said that the videos blatantly discredit Plaintiff's account of the incident.
Defendants argue that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff cannot establish any of the elements necessary to hold Defendants liable under Monell for the actions of the BRPD officers who arrested him.50 First, Defendants argue that the "de facto policies" named in Plaintiff's Complaint—of which there are many—"cannot satisfy the 'official policy' requisite of a Monell claim" because such "policies" are not "affirmative polic[ies], municipal statement[s], ordinance[s], regulation[s], or decision[s]."51 Likewise, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element of a Monell claim through custom (i.e., a "pattern of misconduct") because he cannot establish "a sufficient frequency of similar specific incidents" compared to his treatment and arrest at the July 9 protest.52 Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff "has failed to allege, much less substantively demonstrate...a policymaker who can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge" of the "de facto policies" of which Plaintiff complains.53 Third, Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff could establish the first two Monell elements, his claimsnonetheless fail because the policies complained of were not the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial