Desai v. Farmer
| Decision Date | 29 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:12-cv-495-Oc-34PRL |
| Parties | PANKAJ T. DESAI, M.D., Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM O. FARMER, JR., as the Sheriff of Sumter County, Florida, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 35; Motion), filed on March 3, 2014, and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 40; Response), filed on March 25, 2014. In the Motion, Defendants seek the entry of summary judgment as to all claims against them. In support of such relief, Defendants submit the Affidavit of Michael S. Cassidy (Doc. No. 35-1; Cassidy Aff.) and exhibits, the Affidavit of Michael A. Bishop (Doc. No. 35-2; Bishop Aff.), and exhibits, an excerpt of the transcribed Videotaped Deposition of Pankaj T. Desai, M.D. (Doc. No. 35-3; Desai Dep.), and the Affidavit of Gary Brannen (Doc. No. 35-4; Brannen Aff.), which includes as exhibits the Sumter County Sheriff's Office Operations Directives regarding the use of force and training programs. In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff submits the Affidavit of Essardai Rajkumar (Doc. No. 40-1; Rajkumar Aff.), the Affidavit of Pankaj T. Desai (Doc. No. 40-2; Desai Aff.), and the Affidavit of Raj Desai (Doc. No. 40-3; Raj Desai Aff.). The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for the Court's consideration.
Defendants, Deputies Michael Cassidy (Cassidy) and Michael Bishop (Bishop), are deputies with the Sumter County Sheriff's Office (SCSO). Cassidy Aff. ¶ 2, Bishop Aff. ¶ 2. On July 2, 2010, the two deputies traveled to the Integrated Family Medical Center (IFMC), in The Villages Florida to serve an instanter subpoena for medical records pertaining to a female patient and alleged assault victim. Cassidy Aff. ¶¶ 3-4; Bishop Aff. ¶ 3; Desai Aff. ¶
2. Kalpana Desai, M.D. owned and operated the IFMC. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 3; Bishop Aff. ¶ 3; Desai Aff. ¶ 3. Raj Desai, the son of Kalpana Desai and Plaintiff, Pankaj T. Desai (Desai),2 had allegedly assaulted the patient while she was in an examining room at the IFMC. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 3; Bishop Aff. ¶ 3; Desai Aff. ¶ 5. Upon arrival at the IFMC, Cassidy and Bishop saw Raj Desai walking through the parking lot and Cassidy placed him under arrest. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 4; Bishop Aff. ¶ 4. Other officers then took Raj Desai to the detention center, and Deputies Cassidy and Bishop remained on scene to serve the subpoena and obtain the medical records. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 4; Bishop Aff. ¶ 4; Desai Aff. ¶ 8.
Cassidy and Bishop entered the IFMC building and Cassidy gave the subpoena to the office manager, Myrna Kinzel (Kinzel). Cassidy Aff. ¶ 5; Bishop Aff. ¶ 5. Kinzel instructed Bishop and Cassidy to wait in an examining room. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 5; Bishop Aff. ¶ 5. Essardai Rajkumar, the receptionist for the IFMC, which shares office space with another medical provider, described the deputies's entrance as aggressive, and theircommunications with Kinzel as loud and disruptive to the patients of both medical offices. Rajkumar Aff. ¶¶ 2-7. Rajkumar also stated that Bishop and Cassidy threatened to arrest Kinzel if she did not provide the necessary records. Id. ¶ 8. Kinzel3 called Kalpana Desai, who was not in the office that day. Desai Dep. at 54; Desai Aff. ¶ 7. Kalpana Desai, in turn, notified Desai of their son's arrest. Desai Aff. ¶ 7; Desai Dep. at 54.4 Desai also spoke with Kinzel on the phone, and she informed Desai that the deputies were making a scene in the reception area. Desai Dep. at 54. Desai testified that he instructed Kinzel, who was crying, to tell the deputies to sit in a room. Id.
Desai arrived shortly after his son's arrest, roughly ten minutes after receiving the call from his wife. See id. Upon his arrival, the deputies were already waiting in the examination room and/or the hallway in front of the examination room. See id. at 54-55. According to Desai, Kinzel informed him that she had given Cassidy the medical records. See id. at 59.5 Desai describes his own demeanor as calm, but that of Cassidy as threatening and verballyabusive. Desai Aff. ¶ 10; Desai Dep. at 55-57. Desai states that Cassidy and Bishop were loudly requesting medical records that they already had, and that they were cussing, angry and "throwing power." Desai Aff. ¶¶ 9-12; Desai Dep. at 56-57. In his deposition Desai testified that Cassidy and Bishop threatened to arrest him for obstruction of justice if he did not cooperate. Desai Dep. at 56-57.6 Desai states that he asked to view the subpoena and Cassidy gave it to him, and the parties agree that Desai then asked the deputies if they would step outside and they agreed. Desai Aff. ¶ 15; Cassidy Aff. ¶ 6; Bishop Aff. ¶ 6. After exiting the building, the two deputies and Desai were alone on the porch area of the IFMC. See Desai Dep. at 57-58.
While outside, Cassidy asked Desai if he worked at the medical center and he responded negatively. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 7; Bishop Aff. ¶ 7; Desai Aff. ¶ 16. In his deposition, Desai explains that Cassidy kept saying that Desai did not work there and they did not want to talk to him, and Desai kept responding that Cassidy already had the records he needed. See Desai Dep. at 58-59. According to Desai, Cassidy was holding the medical records, but he did not want to accept that the entirety of the medical records was one piece of paper. See id. Upon realizing that Desai did not work at the IFMC, Cassidy snatched the subpoena from Desai and turned to re-enter the IFMC building. Desai Aff. ¶ 17; Bishop Aff. ¶ 7; Cassidy Aff. ¶ 7. The main dispute in this action concerns what happened as Cassidy walked through the door.
The single door at the entrance to the IFMC opens outward, with the outside knob or handle on the left-hand side, and has a mechanism which closes the door automatically. See Desai Dep. at 60-62; Cassidy Aff. ¶ 17. In his Affidavit, Desai states that he was following Cassidy closely, still attempting to speak with him regarding the subpoena, when Cassidy slammed the heavy metal door on him, which caused Desai to reach up and put his right hand in front of himself and into the door frame, crushing part of his right hand, index finger, and thumb, as Cassidy tried to shut the door. Desai Aff. ¶¶ 18-21. Despite Desai's cries of pain and demands for Cassidy to stop, he "continued to deliberately pull the door closed against [his] hand further crushing it and causing it to bleed." Id. ¶¶ 22-23. Desai states that Bishop, who was behind him, clearly saw what was going on and told Cassidy to open the door, but only after he saw that Desai's hand was bleeding, and eventually helped Desai pull the door out so he could remove his hand. Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Desai contends that this incident "went on for 30 seconds or more." Id. ¶ 27.7 From inside the building, Rajkumarwitnessed one of the deputies re-enter the IFMC while the second officer remained outside with Desai, observed a struggle with the door, and heard Desai "yelling to stop and that he was being hurt." Rajkumar Aff. ¶ 10.
Both deputies maintain that Cassidy did not injure Desai's hand but instead simply walked through the door, without looking back, allowing the door to close automatically behind him, and Desai and Bishop came through the door shortly after Cassidy. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 11; Bishop Aff. ¶¶ 7, 9. The parties agree that Cassidy and Bishop, once back inside the office, continued to request the medical records. Desai Aff. ¶ 28, Cassidy Aff. ¶ 7. After learning that they had all of the applicable medical records, Bishop and Cassidy left.8 Desai Aff. ¶ 30; Cassidy Aff. ¶¶ 8-9. Thereafter, a nurse at the IFMC treated Desai's hand, which was red and bleeding after the incident. Desai Aff. ¶ 29; Rajkumar Aff. ¶ 11. Both deputies deny not only causing any injury to Desai's hand, but also any awareness that Desai suffered any injury while they were present at the IFMC. See Cassidy Aff. ¶¶ 10-11; Bishop Aff. ¶ 9.
Based on the incident, on or about August 3, 2010, Desai filed a complaint with the SCSO alleging misconduct. Desai Aff. ¶ 37. No one from the SCSO contacted or interviewed Desai in response to the complaint. Id. ¶ 38. Following the complaint, Bishop prepared an Investigative Supplement to the Incident Report setting out his version ofevents. Bishop Aff. ¶ 10; Exhibit 1 to Bishop Aff. Cassidy also added an Investigative Supplement to the investigation and arrest report for Raj Desai, detailing his encounter with Desai. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 16; Exhibit 1 to Cassidy Aff. Lieutenant Bobby Caruthers investigated Desai's complaint and interviewed both Bishop and Cassidy regarding the alleged event, who denied its occurrence. Cassidy Aff. ¶ 10; Bishop Aff. ¶ 11. After his interviews, Caruthers determined that the complaint was unfounded. Brannen Aff. ¶ 10. Jack Jordan, the Chief Deputy at the time, also interviewed Cassidy and concurred with Caruthers' determination. Id.
As a result of this incident, Desai initiated the instant lawsuit. In his First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 29; Complaint), Desai asserts claims against William O. Farmer (Sheriff Farmer), as the Sheriff of Sumter County, for battery (Count One) and negligent training (Count Six).9 He asserts claims for battery (Count Two), excessive force in violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count Three), and negligence (Count Four) against Defendant Cassidy. Additionally, Desai asserts a single claim against Defendant Bishop for violating his constitutional rights by failing to intercede when Defendant Cassidy used excessive force against him (Count Five). Defendants jointly filed the instant Motion seeking summary judgment on all claims asserted against them.
Under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial