Epperson v. City of Humboldt

• Citation: 183 F.Supp.3d 897
• Decision Date: 29 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15-1074,15-1074
• Parties: Mary Epperson, individually and as natural mother and next friend of the Decedent, Eddie Ray Epperson; Janice Epperson, individually and as next of kin and next friend of the Decedent; and Sharae Williams, individually and as daughter and next friend of the Decedent, Plaintiffs, v. City of Humboldt, Tennessee ; Robert Ellis, individually and as Chief of the Humboldt Police Department; Antonio Buford, individually and as a member of the Humboldt Police Department; Kevin Hill, Individually and as a member of the Humboldt Police Department; Chris Smith, individually and as a member of the Humboldt Police Department; and John Does 1 Through 10, individually and as members of the Humboldt Police Department, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

183 F.Supp.3d 897

Mary Epperson, individually and as natural mother and next friend of the Decedent, Eddie Ray Epperson; Janice Epperson, individually and as next of kin and next friend of the Decedent; and Sharae Williams, individually and as daughter and next friend of the Decedent, Plaintiffs,

v.City of Humboldt, Tennessee ; Robert Ellis, individually and as Chief of the Humboldt Police Department; Antonio Buford, individually and as a member of the Humboldt Police Department; Kevin Hill, Individually and as a member of the Humboldt Police Department; Chris Smith, individually and as a member of the Humboldt Police Department; and John Does 1 Through 10, individually and as members of the Humboldt Police Department, Defendants.

No. 15-1074

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division.

Signed April 29, 2016

Michael H. Rowan, Rowan Law Group, P.C., Nashville, TN, Barry A. Cohen, The Cohen Law Group, Michael W. Gaines, The Barry A. Cohen Legal Team, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.

John D. Burleson, Milton Dale Conder, Jr., Matthew Robert Courtner, Rainey Kizer Reviere & Bell, PLC, Jackson, TN, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING CASE

J. DANIEL BREEN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

INTRODUCTION

This action was initially brought on March 31, 2015, in the Circuit Court for Gibson County, Tennessee, by Plaintiffs, Mary Epperson, individually and as natural mother and next friend of the decedent, Eddie Ray Epperson; Janice¹ Epperson, individually and as next of kin and next friend of the decedent; and Sharae Williams, individually and as adult daughter and next friend of the decedent, against Defendants, the City of Humboldt, Tennessee; Robert Ellis, individually and as Chief of the Humboldt Police Department ("HPD"); and HPD officers Antonio Buford, Kevin Hill, Chris Smith and John Does One through Ten, individually and as members of the HPD. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Tennessee Constitution. The complaint also claimed violations of state law. The matter was removed to this Court on April 6, 2015. In an order entered October 21, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Mary and Janice Epperson and dismissed and/or remanded certain claims of the remaining Plaintiff.² (D.E. 37.) Those claims still before the Court, against Defendants Buford, Hill and Smith (referred to collectively as the "Individual Defendants") in their individual capacities,³ are the subject of a pending motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D.E. 46.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 56 provides that the "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 judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute of a material fact is genuine so long as the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hosp., Inc. , 814 F.3d 769, 775 (6th Cir.2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting its review, the court is to "view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Cty., Tenn. , 819 F.3d 834, 848, 2016 WL 1169099, at *7 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016). "In other words, at the summary judgment stage, the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Jackson , 814 F.3d at 775 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

FACTS

According to the declarations of Smith and Hill proffered to the Court, at approximately 8:51 p.m. on April 3, 2014, the two officers were at the Westside Grocery in Humboldt monitoring traffic at the intersection of McLin Street and Westside Drive. Hill gave the following account of the incident. The officers observed a black male walking in circles in the road and being nearly struck by a passing vehicle. Hill stated that, based on his experience, it appeared to him the man was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When he exited his patrol car and called to him, the man ran north on Gibson Wells Road. A brief foot chase ensued, after which Hill caught the man, later identified as Eddie Ray Epperson. Epperson pushed Hill away, whereupon the officer grabbed his shirt and attempted to place him under arrest. Epperson continued to struggle as Hill and Smith handcuffed him.

In the incident report authored by Hill, he related that, after he was almost hit by a car in the intersection, Epperson walked at a fast pace out of the roadway, stumbling as he went, and into a grassy area.

He then returned to circling in the intersection, forcing a motorist to stop until he moved out of the way. Hill radioed to dispatch that he and Smith were going to speak to a person at the intersection who was acting suspiciously. At that time, Epperson had started walking west on McLin Street. The officers pulled up behind him in their squad car and turned its headlights on him. He walked into a grassy area near West Side Projects. Hill pulled into an apartment complex parking space, got out of the car and asked, "Hey, man, what's wrong?" It was then that he realized the man was Epperson. When Hill asked the man to come speak with him, Epperson began slowly running away. As the space between them closed, Hill said, "Stop, Eddie Ray." The officer caught up with Epperson and the man pushed him away. Hill grabbed his shirt and again asked, "Eddie Ray, what's wrong?" Epperson turned and Hill observed that his eyes were very large and his pupils dilated. He had a white ring around his mouth and was breathing very heavily. Hill asked a third time what was wrong. Epperson pushed him away again, moaning and grunting as he did so. At that point, Smith arrived with the unit and Hill pushed Epperson, dazed and resisting, to the car. When he continued to fight the officers as they attempted to handcuff him, Smith took Epperson to the ground with a leg sweep maneuver. The arrestee struggled and screamed as Smith checked the pockets on his left side. As he did so, Hill noticed Epperson had something that looked like currency clenched in his left hand. He took it away and searched the man's right side pockets. Buford appeared on the scene and knelt with his hand on Epperson's back. Hill reached into Epperson's right front pocket and pulled out loose change, some small pieces of white paper, Carmex,⁴ and a small clear plastic baggie containing a green leafy substance. The officers rolled Epperson over so they could load him into the patrol car and noticed that he was neither moving nor breathing. He later died.

According to Smith's declaration, he and Hill saw a black male run across Gibson Wells Road to the grocery store parking lot, turn and cross McLin Street. He walked in front of cars and began moving in circles. One vehicle in the street nearly struck him. The man, unsteady on his feet, continued to walk in circles and began flapping his arms. As it appeared to Smith the man was under the influence, he and Hill approached him to check his condition. Hill called to the man and, as the officers walked toward him, he ran away. Hill pursued on foot while Smith followed them in a patrol car. Hill grabbed his shirt as Epperson waved his arms behind him. Smith positioned the police vehicle to prevent the man's escape. When Hill placed Epperson against the unit, he began fighting and resisting the officers. Smith took hold of his left arm while Hill attempted to grab his right. Smith did a leg sweep maneuver and took Epperson to the ground. At that point, the officers were able to place handcuffs on the man. Both officers stated that they did not know whether Epperson was armed.

A copy of what appears to be an HPD internal record on Eddie Ray Epperson, provided by Williams in response to the instant motion, indicated a previous arrest on December 28, 2013, with a notation of "Mental Illness." She also submitted to the Court a toxicology report reflecting that the decedent was not in fact under the influence of alcohol but tested positive for cocaine.

THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES AND ANALYSIS

Section 1983 Generally.

Section 1983 provides a private right of action against any person who subjects "any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights[ or] privileges ... secured by the Constitution and laws[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; Rehberg v. Paulk , 566 U.S. 356, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 1501, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012). The statute "creates no substantive rights, but merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere." Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr. , 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir.2001) (citing Okla. City v. Tuttle , 471 U.S. 808, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985) ). A plaintiff suing under the statute must demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right caused by a defendant acting under color of state law. Carl v. Muskegon Cty. , 763 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir.2014).

Qualified Immunity.

The Individual Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity, which protects officials from suit and damages liability in their individual capacities. See Johnson v. Moseley , 790 F.3d 649, 653 (6th Cir.2015). The doctrine "shields officials from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Peatross v. City of Memphis , 818 F.3d 233, 240, 2016 WL 1211916, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 29, 2016) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ) (internal alterations & quotation marks omitted). Qualified immunity ...