Dunn v. Doe

• Docket Number: 4:21-cv-00053-SHL-HCA
• Decision Date: 24 April 2023
• Citation: Dunn v. Doe, 670 F.Supp.3d 735 (S.D. Iowa 2023)
• Parties: Cierra DUNN, Verchon DeBrossard, Michael Klingenberg, Trentae Fugate, Cameron Lard, Sophia Jacobsen, Jivonte Johnson, Jayvione Lewis, Makenzie Moler, Jaquan Patton, Joshua Petefish, Emma Timberlake, Harrison Woods, and Tony Young, Plaintiffs, v. John DOE 1 - 22, Ian Lawler, Michael McCtaggart, Brandon Holtan, Chris Hardy, Brendan Egan, Jeremy Betts, Tyler Palmer, Dave Chiodo, Timothy Coughennower, Benjamin McCarthy, Nick Smith, Adam Herman, Todd Wilshusen, Ken Callahan, Ryan Armstrong, Tyler Moffatt, Jacob Hedlund, Kyle Gruver, Nicholas Valentine, Clark Allen, Ernesto Escobar Hernandez, Chad Nicolino, Jeffrey George, Bradley Youngblut, Jake Forrester, Kirk Bagby, Dana Wingert, City of Des Moines, Iowa, Polk County, Iowa, City of West Des Moines, Iowa and City of Altoona, Iowa, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

670 F.Supp.3d 735

Cierra DUNN, Verchon DeBrossard, Michael Klingenberg, Trentae Fugate, Cameron Lard, Sophia Jacobsen, Jivonte Johnson, Jayvione Lewis, Makenzie Moler, Jaquan Patton, Joshua Petefish, Emma Timberlake, Harrison Woods, and Tony Young, Plaintiffs, v.John DOE 1 - 22, Ian Lawler, Michael McCtaggart, Brandon Holtan, Chris Hardy, Brendan Egan, Jeremy Betts, Tyler Palmer, Dave Chiodo, Timothy Coughennower, Benjamin McCarthy, Nick Smith, Adam Herman, Todd Wilshusen, Ken Callahan, Ryan Armstrong, Tyler Moffatt, Jacob Hedlund, Kyle Gruver, Nicholas Valentine, Clark Allen, Ernesto Escobar Hernandez, Chad Nicolino, Jeffrey George, Bradley Youngblut, Jake Forrester, Kirk Bagby, Dana Wingert, City of Des Moines, Iowa, Polk County, Iowa, City of West Des Moines, Iowa and City of Altoona, Iowa, Defendants.

4:21-cv-00053-SHL-HCA

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division

Signed April 24, 2023

Gina Messamer, Brandon John Brown, Jessica Donels, Brown & Bergmann, L.L.P., Des Moines, IA, for PlaintiffsCierra Dunn, Verchon Debrossard, Michael Klingenberg, Trentae Fugate, Cameron Lard, Sophia Jacobsen, Jivonte Johnson, Makenzie Moler, Jaquan Patton, Joshua Petefish, Emma Timberlake, Harrison Woods, Tony Young.

Gina Messamer, Brandon John Brown, Brown & Bergmann, L.L.P., Des Moines, IA, for PlaintiffJayvione Lewis.

John O. Haraldson, Des Moines City Attorney, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants John Does, Ian Lawler, Michael McTaggart.

John O. Haraldson, Des Moines City Attorney, Des Moines, IA, Gregory R. Brown, Duncan Green PC, Des Moines, IA, for DefendantsBrandon Holtan, Chris Hardy, Brendan Egan, Jeremy Betts, David Chiodo, Timothy Coughennower, Benjamin McCarthy, Adam Herman, Todd Wilshushen, Ryan Armstrong, Jacob Hedlund, Kyle Gruver, Nicholas Valentine, Clark Allen, Ernesto Escobar Hernandez, Chad Nicolino, Jeffrey George, Bradley Youngblut, Kirk Bagby, Dana Wingert, City of Des Moines, Iowa.

Michael C. Richards, Katherine E. Gral, Dentons Davis Brown PC, Des Moines, IA, for DefendantsTyler Palmer, Tyler Moffatt, Jake Forrester, City of West Des Moines, City of Altoona.

Meghan L. Gavin, Julie Jean Bussanmas, Polk County Attorney, Des Moines, IA, for DefendantsNick Smith, Ken Callahan, Polk County Iowa.

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

*AS AMENDED*

STEPHEN H. LOCHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction...758

II.Summary of Rulings...759

III.Background Facts Applicable to AllPlaintiffs...761

A.Interactions between Protesters and Law Enforcement Officers On May 30 and 31, 2020, in Des Moines, Iowa...762

B.Facts Regarding Supervisory and Government EntityDefendants...768

1.Des Moines Police Chief DanaWingert...768

2.Des Moines Police Lieutenant KirkBagby...769

3.Des Moines Police Captain MichaelMcTaggart...770

4.Government EntityDefendants...771

IV.Legal Background — Summary Judgment and Qualified ImmunityStandards...773

A.Summary JudgmentStandards...773

B.Federal Law Qualified ImmunityStandards...773

1.Qualified Immunity for Individual Officers under Federal Law...773

2.Qualified Immunity for Supervisors and Government Entities under Federal Law...774

C.State Law Qualified ImmunityStandards...775

1.Qualified Immunity for Individual Officers under Iowa Law...775

2.Qualified Immunity for Supervisors and Government Entities under Baldwin...777

D.State Law Statutory ImmunityStandards...777

V.Legal Background — Unlawful Seizure and False Arrest Claims (Counts I, II, and VIII)...777

A.Federal Law Unlawful Seizure Claims (Count I)...777

B.State Law Unlawful Seizure Claims(Count II)...778

C.State Law False Arrest Claims(Count VIII)...780

VI.Overarching Legal Analysis — Unlawful Seizure and False ArrestClaims...780

A.Officers Did Not Have Arguable Probable Cause to Arrest Plaintiffs for Failure to Disperse or Unlawful Assembly Based Solely on Plaintiffs' Presence Near 3rd Street and Court Avenue after 2:40 a.m....780

B.For Purposes of the State LawGodfreyClaims for Unlawful Seizure, Officers Did Not Have a Lawful Basis to Arrest Plaintiffs for Failure to Disperse or Unlawful Assembly Based Solely on Plaintiffs' Presence Near 3rd Street and Court Avenue after 2:40 a.m....787

C.The Emergency Response Immunity Defense Is Available on Plaintiffs' False ArrestClaims...789

VII.Specific Legal Analysis — Unlawful Seizure and False ArrestClaims...790

A.Plaintiff HarrisonWoods...790

1.Facts Specific to Woods...790

2.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants McTaggart and Bagby on Woods's CountI...793

3.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Woods's CountII...795

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants McTaggart and Bagby on Woods's CountVIII...798

B.Plaintiff MichaelKlingenberg...798

1.Facts Specific to Klingenberg...798

2.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Klingenberg's Count I except as to Defendants Bagby and McTaggart, Both of Whom Are Entitled to SummaryJudgment...800 3.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Klingenberg's CountII...803

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Klingenberg's Count VIII except Defendants Holtan and Herman on the Issue of PunitiveDamages...803

C.Plaintiff MackenzieMoler...804

1.Facts Specific to Moler...804

2.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Moler's Count I as to Defendant Forrester but Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of of Defendants McTaggart and Bagby...808

3.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Moler's CountII...810

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Moler's Count VIII except Defendant Forrester on the Issue of PunitiveDamages...810

D.Plaintiff JoshuaPetefish...811

1.Facts Specific to Petefish...811

2.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Petefish's Count I as to Defendant Lawler but Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants McTaggart and Bagby...814

3.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Petefish's CountII...816

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Relevant Defendants on Petefish's Count VIII except Defendant Lawler on the Issue of PunitiveDamages...817

E.Plaintiffs Cameron Lard and VerchonDeBrossard...817

1.Facts Specific to Lard and DeBrossard...817

2.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Lard's and DeBrossard's Count I except as to Defendants Bagby and McTaggart, Both of Whom Are Entitled to SummaryJudgment...820

3.The Court Denies Both Sides' Motions for Summary Judgment on Lard's and DeBrossard's CountII...823

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendants Bagby and McTaggart on Lard's and DeBrossard's Count VIII but Denies Summary Judgment as to Other Relevant Defendants on the Issue of Punitive Damages ...823

F.PlaintiffsJaquan Patton, Emma Timberlake, Tony Young, Sophia Jacobsen, Jivonte Johnson, and JayvioneLewis...824

1.Facts Specific to Patton, Timberlake, Young, Jacobsen, Johnson, and Lewis...824

2.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Patton, Timberlake, Young, Jacobsen, Johnson, and Lewis on Count I as to Each Defendant Shown by Undisputed Evidence to Have Been Directly Involved in the Arrests and in Favor of Defendants Nicolino, George, McTaggart and Bagby...831

3.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Patton, Timberlake, Young, Jacobsen, Johnson, and Lewis on Count II as to Each Defendant Shown by Undisputed Evidence to Have Been Directly Involved in the Arrests and in Favor of Defendants Nicolino and George...837

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment for All Defendants on the False Arrest Claims except as to Claims for Punitive Damages Against Officers Directly Involved in theArrests...838

G.Plaintiffs Cierra Dunn and TrentaeFugate...839

1.Facts Specific to Dunn and Fugate...839

2.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Dunn's and Fugate's CountI...840

3.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Dunn's and Fugate's CountII...841

4.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Dunn's and Fugate's CountVIII...841

VIII.Legal Background — Excessive Force and Assault and Battery Claims (Counts III, IV, and IX)...842

A.Federal Law Excessive Force Claims (Count III)...842

B.State Law Excessive Force Claims(Count IV)...842

C.State Law Assault and Battery Claims(Count IX)...843

IX.Legal Analysis — Excessive Force and Assault and BatteryClaims...843

A.The Court Denies Summary Judgment as to DefendantJohn Doe on Woods's Excessive Force Claims but Grants Summary Judgment in John Doe's Favor on Woods's Assault and BatteryClaim...844

B.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Moler's Excessive Force and Assault and BatteryClaims...845

C.The Court Denies Summary Judgment as to DefendantJohn Doe on Petefish's Excessive Force Claims but Grants Summary Judgment in John Doe's Favor on Petefish's Assault and BatteryClaim...846

D.The Court Grants Summary Judgment for Some Defendants (but not Others) on Lard's Excessive Force and Assault and BatteryClaims...847

X.Background and Analysis — Malicious Prosecution Claims (Counts VII and XII)...849

A.Federal Law Malicious Prosecution Claims (Count XII)...849

1.The Court Will Assume without Deciding that Plaintiffs Have Shown a Sufficient Impairment of Their Fourth Amendment Rights to Proceed on a Section 1983 Claim Based on MaliciousProsecution...850

2.The Court Will Assume without Deciding that the Federal Malicious Prosecution Claims Are Viable in Other RelevantRespects...851

3.The Relevant Defendants Have Not Shown They Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Federal Malicious ProsecutionClaims...852

B.The Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of All Relevant Defendants on Plaintiffs' State Law Malicious Pr...