Deezia v. City of Lincoln
Decision Date | 29 October 2018 |
Docket Number | 4:17CV3033 |
Citation | 350 F.Supp.3d 868 |
Parties | Barine DEEZIA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LINCOLN, Gregory Graham, Lincoln Police Department Officer, Aaron Peth, Lincoln Police Department Officer, Trey Wayne, Lincoln Police Department Officer, Andrew Winkler, Lincoln Police Department Officer, Mark Moore, Lincoln Police Department Officer, Patrick Murphy, Lincoln Police Department Officer, and Jason Drager, Lincoln Police Department Officer, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
Richard L. Boucher, Boucher Law Firm, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff.
Elizabeth D. Elliott, City Attorney's Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants.
Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence action against the City of Lincoln, Nebraska, and several of its police officers for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when the officers allegedly falsely arrested and used excessive force in detaining and arresting him. After resolution of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 31), the remaining claims in this suit are: (1) a false-arrest claim against the Defendant police officers in their individual capacities; (2) an excessive-force claim against the Defendant police officers in their individual capacities; and (3) a negligence claim against the City of Lincoln.
In four separate motions, Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the Defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity and to judgment on the merits as to Plaintiff's false-arrest and excessive-force claims (Filing Nos. 73, 74, 75); and (2) the City of Lincoln is entitled to sovereign immunity and to judgment on the merits as to Plaintiff's negligence claim (Filing No. 72). I shall grant the motions in part and deny them in part.
Unhelpfully, both Plaintiff and Defendants have presented the court with their own statements of material facts, Plaintiff has not properly controverted the Defendants' statement of facts pursuant to NECivR 56.1, and Defendants have not responded in any fashion to Plaintiff's statement of facts. While Rule 56.1(b)(1)1 allows me to consider Defendants' statement of facts admitted under these circumstances,2 I am also bound to give due consideration to Plaintiff's properly referenced statement of facts presented in opposition to the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Jenkins v. Winter , 540 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2008) ( ). Therefore, I shall reproduce both statements of material facts verbatim and discuss any relevant disputes of fact in the course of analyzing the substance of the pending motions.
The Defendants' statement of material facts is as follows:3
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jaso v. Schlemat
...duty to protect Rutledge from Ford.Id. at 749-52 (footnotes omitted). This court reached the same result in Deezia v. City of Lincoln, 350 F. Supp. 3d 868 (D. Neb. 2018) (Kopf, J.), in which the plaintiff claimed he was injured while being arrested, and alleged that the City of Lincoln was ......
-
State v. Ferrin
...Id. at 859, 566 N.W.2d at 390.27 Id. at 861, 566 N.W.2d at 391.28 Id. 29 Id. at 862, 566 N.W.2d at 391.30 See, Deezia v. City of Lincoln , 350 F. Supp. 3d 868 (D. Neb. 2018) ; State v. Ellingson , 13 Neb. App. 931, 703 N.W.2d 273 (2005) ; State v. Owen , 7 Neb. App. 153, 580 N.W.2d 566 (199......
-
Harris v. Gentile
...defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution."); Deezia v. City of Lincoln, 350 F. Supp. 3d 868, 881-82 (D. Neb. 2018) (two police officers standing on opposite corner of intersection from arrestee were not personally involved in his arrest as requ......