Deavers v. Martin
| Decision Date | 19 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-cv-00423 |
| Parties | AMY DEAVERS, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA MARTIN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Pending before the Court are Defendants Scott Lowther's (“Lowther”) Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No 59); Mike King's (“King”) Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 61); and Joshua Martin (“Martin”) and the Kanawha County Commission's (“Kanawha County”) Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 63). For the reasons more fully explained below, Lowther and King's motions, (ECF Nos. 59 and 61, respectively), are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Martin and Kanawha County's motion, (ECF No. 63), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Further pending before the Court is Scott Lowther and Mike King's Motion to Join Defendants Joshua Martin and Kanawha County Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 66.) As explained below, this motion is DENIED.[1]
II. BACKGROUND
This action arises out of an alleged unreasonable search and seizure by members of a joint task force in the execution of an arrest on June 15, 2020, in Glasgow, Kanawha County, West Virginia. On June 3, 2020, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, issued a capias against Florence Kiewra (“Kiewra”) for a violation of furlough on an original charge of possession with intent to deliver heroin. (ECF No. 68-1.) On June 13, 2020, the Kanawha County Sheriff's Department (“Kanawha County Sheriff”) received a tip indicating that Kiewra was “hiding out at 307 3rd Ave in Glasgow at Tabatha deavers [sic] residence.” (ECF No. 68-2.) At the time relevant to this action, Plaintiff Amy Deavers (“Plaintiff”) resided at 307 Third Street in Glasgow, along with her fiance, David Neville. (ECF No. 68-3 at 3.) Tabitha Deavers, Plaintiff's adult daughter, did not live at the residence at the time in question, nor did Kiewra. (Id. at 19.)
On June 15, 2020, Deputy United States Marshal Scott Hill (“DUSM Hill”) was supervising the United States Marshals Service (“Marshals Service”) C.U.F.F.E.D. Task Force[2](“Cuffed Task Force”), a joint task force the purpose of which was to locate and apprehend individuals who were subject to federal and state arrest and search warrants. (ECF No. 59-1 at ¶ 5.) The task force was generally comprised of members of the Marshals Service and local law enforcement personnel who have been specially deputized by the Marshals Service to serve on the task force. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Local law enforcement personnel who have been specially deputized to serve on the Cuffed Task Force by the Marshals Service are supervised by the Deputy United States Marshal assigned for duty with the Cuffed Task Force on that date while executing search and arrest warrants and when taking individuals into custody who are the subject of the arrest warrants. (Id. at ¶ 5.) While serving on the Cuffed Task Force and engaging in task force activities, local law enforcement personnel are considered federal officers. (Id.)
DUSM Hill met with the members of the Cuffed Task Force on June 15 to discuss and assign the warrants which were to be executed on that date. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Following this meeting, the members of the Cuffed Task Force proceeded to enter vehicles provided by the Marshals Service and traveled to various locations to execute the warrants and take those individuals who were subject to the warrants into custody. (Id.) The members assigned to Kiewra's warrant were DUSM Hill, Deputy United States Marshal Justin Mounts,[3] and Special Deputies Martin, King, and Lowther. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Based on the tip received by the Kanawha County Sheriff, the above members of the Cuffed Task Force travelled to 307 Third Avenue in Glasgow, West Virginia, whereupon they discovered that the address was not the Deavers' residence. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Instead, the members of the Cuffed Task Force learned that Tabitha Deavers was located at 307 Third Street and traveled to that location to execute the warrant. (Id.)
Upon arrival at 307 Third Street, the members of the Cuffed Task Force approached the front door of the residence and knocked. (Id. at ¶ 9, ECF No. 68-5 at 4.) Either DUSM Hill or Martin identified themselves and asked whether Kiewra was present and stated that the Cuffed Task Force had a warrant for Kiewra's arrest. (ECF Nos. 59-1 at ¶ 9; 68-5 at 4.) Plaintiff, who answered the door, acknowledged that Kiewra was present. (ECF No. 68-5 at 4.) DUSM Hill avers that he “had [Plaintiff's] consent to enter the residence to execute the warrant to arrest Kiewra.” (ECF No. 59-1 at ¶ 9.) However, Martin testified that Plaintiff did not give her consent for the members of the Cuffed Task Force to enter the home and asked to see a warrant. (ECF No. 68-5 at 4-5.) Martin refused to show Plaintiff the warrant until after they had apprehended Kiewra because of “officer safety.” (Id. at 5.) Martin then “brushed by [Plaintiff] and went inside the residence” to locate Kiewra.[4] (Id. at 4.)
As Martin entered the residence, Plaintiff put her hand up to attempt to stop the entry, at which point Defendant King grabbed Plaintiff's arm in an “arm bar,” spun her around, swept her legs out from under her, and placed her in handcuffs. (ECF Nos. 68-3 at 5; 68-6 at 7.) Once Plaintiff was detained, King followed Martin into the residence. (ECF No. 68-6 at 7.) Kiewra was thereafter located in the residence and taken into custody without further incident. (ECF No. 68 at 4.) DUSM Mounts and Defendant Lowther were not involved in the physical arrest of Kiewra, as they were positioned outside of the residence while the arrest was effectuated. (ECF No. 59-1 at ¶ 10.) However, as Kiewra was escorted out of the back room, Defendant Lowther entered the residence and noted that Plaintiff was “on the ground and a task force officer [was] kneeling beside her.” (ECF No. 68-7 at 7.)
Following Kiewra's arrest, DUSM Hill returned to the front of the residence. (ECF No. 59-1 at ¶ 11.) There, DUSM Hill observed that Plaintiff had been taken into custody “for trying to interfere with the arrest of Kiewra.” (Id.) After some consideration, the members of the Cuffed Task Force decided not to charge Plaintiff and released her from custody. (Id.) Plaintiff believes she was detained in handcuffs on the ground for somewhere between five and ten minutes. (ECF No. 68 at 4.)
Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia on June 15, 2021, wherein she asserted four causes of action. (ECF No. 1-1.) Thereafter, Kanawha County and Martin removed the action to this Court on July 28, 2021, pursuant to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1.).
On October 27, 2021, King and Lowther jointly filed a motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to substitute the United States in lieu of themselves.[5] (See ECF Nos. 15, 17.) On January 26, 2022, King and Lowther filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the adjudication of their motions to dismiss and substitute. (ECF No. 29.) On February 14, 2022, the Court granted the motion to stay, pending resolution of the motions. (ECF No. 32.) Subsequently, on February 23, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' various motions, while also granting Plaintiff's request to amend her complaint. (ECF No. 33 at 13-14.)
Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on March 4, 2022. (ECF No. 35.) In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has asserted three causes of action. Count I asserts a violation of her constitutional rights through the alleged unreasonable search and seizure and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or, in the alternative, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Id. at 4.) Count II similarly asserts a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights through her alleged unlawful detainer and the task force's use of excessive force and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or, in the alternative, Bivens. (Id. at 4-5.) Finally, Count III asserts a cause of action of negligence and is brought against Kanawha County. (Id. at 5-6.)
On June 27, 2022, Lowther, (ECF No. 59); King, (ECF No. 61); and Martin and Kanawha County, (ECF No. 63), filed their respective motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded in opposition to each in a consolidated response filed on July 11, 2022. (ECF No. 68.) Also on July 11, King and Lowther filed their titled “Motion to Join,” purporting to join in Martin and Kanawha County's arguments for summary judgment. (ECF No. 66.) On July 17, 2022, King and Lowther filed their respective replies to their motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 69, 70.) Then, on July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed her response in opposition to King and Lowther's motion to join, (ECF No. 71), and Martin and Kanawha County filed their reply to their motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 72). With the briefing on these motions complete, they are now ripe for adjudication.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment. It states, in pertinent part, that a court should grant summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” News & Observer Publ Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment should not be granted if there are factual issues that reasonably may be resolved in favor of either party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). “Thus, at the summary judgment phase, the pertinent inquiry is whether there...
To continue reading
Request your trial