Fondren v. White
| Decision Date | 24 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:18CV1102 JCH,4:18CV1102 JCH |
| Parties | COREY FONDREN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL WHITE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 30, 2020. (ECF No. 59). The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition.1
Prior to the incident in question on June 3, 2017, Plaintiff Corey Fondren had been arrested by St. Louis County police officers on numerous occasions3, for charges including Destruction of Private Property and Peace Disturbance in 2010, Possession of Marijuana in 2010, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident in 2011. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 2). Plaintiff had also pled guilty to the crime of Assault in 2012, and further had two orders of protection issued against him. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5).
On May 27, 2017, one week prior to the incident at issue, Defendant Police Officer Joshua Mace ("Mace") investigated a complaint by Mark Bouchie and David Cameron, that Plaintiff was stalking Mr. Cameron's daughter and causing a disturbance. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 8). During his investigation Mace was informed by Plaintiff's mother that Plaintiff can become aggressive. (Id., ¶ 10). Plaintiff's mother further informed Mace that Plaintiff had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and that he was not taking his medication for the diseases. (Id., ¶ 11).4
On June 3, 2017, Defendant Police Officers Michael White ("White"), Alexandra Saul ("Saul") and Mace were employed and on duty as police officers, and dressed in full St. Louis County Police Department police uniforms. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 1). On that day, Plaintiff admits he was in the parking lot at 3801 Vaile Road at 2:00 a.m. (Id., ¶ 15).5 Plaintiff had previously been wandering around the strip mall, at times waving his hands, and talking about being an FBI agent. (Id., ¶ 14).6 Plaintiff informed Defendants Mace and Saul that he was their boss, and they were fired. (Id., ¶ 18). Plaintiff further glared at Defendant White in a menacing and agitated way, and placed himself in an aggressive fighting posture. (Id., ¶ 19).
Defendants entered the substation to discuss options regarding how to handle Plaintiff. (See Defendants' Exh. 1, P. 7). While they were inside Plaintiff stood in front of the door, and used his foot and body weight to trap Defendants in the substation. (Id.; Defendants' Facts, ¶ 20). Defendant Mace repeatedly ordered Plaintiff to move away from the door, but Plaintiffrefused to do so. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 21). Plaintiff eventually violently pushed the substation door into Defendant Mace, striking his chest. (Id., ¶ 22).7
Defendant Mace advised Plaintiff that he was under arrest, and ordered him to get on the ground. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 24). Plaintiff did not comply, instead assuming a "fighting stance." (Id.). Defendants utilized various methods in their attempt to arrest and secure Plaintiff, including ordering him to get to the ground and place his hands behind his back, and tasing him, to no avail.8 (Id., ¶ 29). Instead Plaintiff fled, eventually arriving at 15513 Jost Main, an address in a neighborhood with private homes. (Id., ¶¶ 28, 31-32).
Although he did not know the residents, Plaintiff ran to the door of 15513 Jost Main and knocked hard. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 33). Defendant White, who had been chasing Plaintiff, feared both for his own safety and for the residence occupants' safety. (Id., ¶¶ 34-35).9 In order to gain control, White informed Plaintiff he was under arrest. (Id., ¶ 36). He reached out to grab Plaintiff, but due to Plaintiff's resisting movements, instead of grabbing his shoulder White's hand hit Plaintiff's face. (Id.). For his part, Plaintiff admits he swung his arm, attempting to punch White. (Id., ¶ 38). Plaintiff in fact struck White on the left side of his face. (Id., ¶ 37).
Defendant White then used his body weight to bring Plaintiff to the ground. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 39). White continued to give Plaintiff clear commands to stop resisting, and to put his hands behind his back, but Plaintiff ignored the orders. (Id., ¶ 41). Instead, Plaintiff admits he was squirming, twisting and rolling his body, and moving his arms, head, torso and every part of his body before he was handcuffed. (Id., ¶ 42).
Defendant White eventually straddled Plaintiff's upper shoulders and head, trying to handcuff his left arm. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 49). Plaintiff then bit White's inner left thigh, and White struck Plaintiff on the right side of his body to get him to stop biting. (Id., ¶ 50). Plaintiff then reached for White's firearm, trying to remove it from its holster while continuing to fight White. (Id., ¶ 51).10
Plaintiff eventually was handcuffed by Defendants Mace and Saul, but continued to resist by kicking his legs, rolling his body, pulling his arms, twisting and turning. (Defendants' Facts, ¶¶ 57-58). Plaintiff's resistance was so severe that the officers had to shackle his legs. (Id., ¶ 59).
After Plaintiff was subdued, he was transported to SSM DePaul Hospital. (Defendants' Facts, ¶ 66). The medical records of SSM DePaul Hospital note that Plaintiff's eyes, musculoskeletal system and body were normal; they do not note that he complained about his eye, elbow or thumb. (Id., ¶¶ 67-68). Plaintiff eventually was transported to the St. Louis County Justice Center ("County Jail"), where he was housed in the infirmary and seen by nurses, doctors and psychiatrists, with access to medical care at all times. (Id., ¶¶ 69-70). During his stay at the County Jail Plaintiff did not complain to any of these medical personnel about his eye, elbow or thumb. (Id., ¶ 71). Instead, he complained only about his shoulder and knee, and that was only after he had been at the County Jail for almost two weeks.11 (Id., ¶ 72). After spending over a year at the County Jail, Plaintiff was transferred to Metropolitan Psychiatric Center ("MPC") in September of 2019, where he was examined regularly by doctors, nurses and a psychiatrist. (Id., ¶¶ 73-75). The records from Plaintiff's initial examination by a physician atMPC do not reflect problems with Plaintiff's vision, eyes, body or thumb, nor do they indicate that Plaintiff had musculoskeletal problems, back deformities, arthritis, back pain, joint pain, muscle stiffness or weakness, or skin problems. (Id., ¶ 76).
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this matter on July 5, 2018. (ECF No. 1). In his Third Amended Complaint, filed January 28, 2019, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force during the course of his arrest on June 3, 2017. (ECF No. 26). Specifically, he claims as follows:
(Id., PP. 5-10).12
As noted above, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on April 30, 2020, asserting there exist no genuine issues of material fact and they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims of excessive force. (ECF No. 59).
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 249.
In a recent opinion United States Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins of this Court provided a detailed analysis of the doctrine of qualified immunity, which the Court quotes at length here:
To continue reading
Request your trial