Forrest v. Parry

• Decision Date: 10 July 2019
• Docket Number: No. 16-4351,16-4351
• Citation: 930 F.3d 93
• Parties: Alanda FORREST, Appellant v. Kevin PARRY, PHM; Camden City Police Officer; Jason Stetser, PHM; Camden City Police Officer; City of Camden; City of Camden Department of Public Safety; Warren Faulk; Paula Dow; Department of the Treasury, State of New Jersey ; John Does I-IV
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

930 F.3d 93

Alanda FORREST, Appellant

v.Kevin PARRY, PHM; Camden City Police Officer; Jason Stetser, PHM; Camden City Police Officer; City of Camden; City of Camden Department of Public Safety; Warren Faulk; Paula Dow; Department of the Treasury, State of New Jersey ; John Does I-IV

No. 16-4351

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued November 15, 2018

Filed: July 10, 2019

Elizabeth A. Rose [ARGUED], Sullivan & Cromwell, 1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 2006, Counsel for Appellant

John C. Eastlack, Jr., Daniel E. Rybeck, [ARGUED], Georgios Farmakis, Weir & Partners, 20 Brace Road, Suite 200, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034, Lilia Londar [ARGUED], Weir & Partners, 215 Fries Mill Road, 2nd Floor, Turnersville, NJ 08012, Counsel for Appellee

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

In Beck v. City of Pittsburgh , we were faced with what we deemed "a question of considerable interest in [a] period of alleged rising police brutality in major cities across the country"—what is sufficient evidence from which a jury can infer that a municipality adopted a custom of permitting its police officers to use excessive force? 89 F.3d 966, 967 (3d Cir. 1996). More than two decades later, the interest and allegations persist, and, as it would appear, so does the question.

The evidence in this case demonstrates that the Internal Affairs Unit ("Internal Affairs") of the since-disbanded Camden Police Department was woefully deficient in investigating civilian complaints about officer misconduct. Citing Beck , the District Court found this to be sufficient. However, the Court narrowed the case to only this evidence, and, as a result, did not consider its significance when combined with the non-Internal Affairs-related deficiencies in Camden's supervision and training of its police officers. This occurred in two phases: first, the District Court unilaterally divided Appellant, Alanda Forrest's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 municipal liability claim into three theories, labeled failure to supervise through Internal Affairs, failure to supervise, and failure to train, and, second, it then associated the evidence pertaining to the deficiencies in Internal Affairs to only the first theory.

Forrest argues that this resulted in errors at various stages. At summary judgment, it resulted in a grant in favor of Camden on the failure to supervise and train theories. On the parties' motions in limine, the Court improperly excluded evidence that was material to the § 1983 theory that survived summary judgment, and effectively awarded summary judgment on the state law negligent supervision claim which it had previously deemed triable. The jury instructions then confused the relevant law regarding the sole surviving claim.

We agree. The artificial line, drawn by the District Court, between what were ostensibly theories with largely overlapping evidence resulted in erroneous rulings as to what was relevant, as well as instructions as to what law the jury was to apply. We will therefore reverse those aspects of the District Court's rulings that resulted in error, vacate part three of the jury verdict, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

A.

On July 1, 2008, two police officers kicked down several doors of the residence at 1270 Morton Street, Camden, New Jersey ("1270 Morton"). According to Forrest, his encounter with the officers began with him pinned between the wall and the door of the upstairs bedroom, which had been kicked open. He heard his acquaintance, Kennedy Blevins, twice scream, "why you beating on me[?]" Pl.'s Resp. Br. Ex. 64-a, at 105:10–17, ECF No. 144-76. One officer asked, "where the drugs at?" and Blevins twice responded, "I don't know what you talking about." Id .

Just a few hours earlier, Forrest had just finished work for a housing contractor at a house across the street. He went to 1270 Morton Street to speak with some acquaintances. He and one such acquaintance—Shahede Green—had been on the porch for a while when the two noticed a police car "coming down the opposite direction" on a one-way street. Id. at 96:3. It was around midnight at this point, so Forrest decided to call a cab. The two went inside as Forrest waited for the cab to arrive. While waiting, Forrest heard a number of sounds that caused him to be alarmed, all of which culminated in what sounded like someone kicking the front door.

At the time, the house was occupied by Forrest, Green, Blevins, and two women. One of the women was known as Hot Dog and the other, Kesha Brown. Forrest left Green and Hot Dog downstairs, and went upstairs to Blevins's room. Brown was also upstairs, in bed in what is referred to as the "front room." Id. at 106:22–23. As Forrest began explaining to Blevins that the front door had been kicked, Blevins's bedroom door was kicked open. Being near the bedroom door, Forrest reflexively stepped back, and was immediately covered by the door. Forrest remained pinned between the door and the wall, fearing that he would immediately be shot by an officer if he came out from behind the door.

Through the opening between the door and the wall, Forrest heard Blevins's screams. He saw another officer come up the stairs, and moments afterwards, heard Brown scream. Forrest saw the officer "doing something with his arm," but could not make out what the officer was doing. Id. at 107:9–11. Eventually, the officer told Brown to go downstairs. The officer then entered Blevins's room, where Forrest, Blevins, and the other officer were located. One of the officers swung the door away from Forrest, and hit him in the face, knocking him out. When Forrest regained consciousness, an officer, later identified as Kevin Parry, was on top of him. Officer Parry repeatedly punched Forrest in the face. Officer Parry then handcuffed Forrest, and the officers—Parry and Jason Stetser—dragged Forrest down the stairs. Forrest suffered a laceration to his ear, facial bruising, and injuries to his knees

.¹

Officer Parry placed Forrest in the back seat of the supervising Sergeant's vehicle. Officer Parry proceeded to tell Forrest that any drugs found in the house would be attributed to him. The Sergeant, Dan Morris, then took Forrest to a vacant parking lot, at which point Forrest asked "I'm bleeding like crazy. Why you got me here? Why don't you take me to the hospital?" Pl.'s Resp. Br. Ex. 64-b, at 134:19–21, ECF No. 144-77. Sergeant Morris allegedly ordered Forrest to shut up, and said, "my officers don't plant drugs on people." Id. at 136:25–137:2. Officers Parry and Stetser arrived soon after, and Sergeant Morris passed something to Officer Parry.

Forrest was taken to the hospital to be treated thereafter. When the attending nurse inquired as to what caused his injuries, he simply told her that he tripped and fell. The officers had previously warned that if Forrest said any more, they would charge him with having assaulted five officers.

B.

In the police report he prepared regarding this incident, Officer Parry wrote that he had observed Forrest engaging in a hand-to-hand drug transaction on the porch of 1270 Morton, and that Forrest initiated the physical altercation with him and Officer Stetser. Officer Parry testified to that version of events before the grand jury and claimed that Forrest was in possession of 49 bags of a controlled dangerous substance. Forrest was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute, possession within one thousand feet of a school, and resisting arrest.

Forrest filed a complaint with Internal Affairs on July 21, 2008. He alleged that he was assaulted by Officer Parry "and his partner," which resulted in "a cut ear [that] required stitches, [bruises] on [his] knees, pain in [his neck], and headaches." Def.'s Mot. Ex. 33, ECF No. 138-4 at 59. The complaint went nowhere, so he wrote a follow-up letter two months later. The letter reiterated the assault charges and indicated that Internal Affairs had yet to respond to Forrest's initial complaint. Forrest ultimately pleaded guilty to possession with intent. He was sentenced to three years and eighteen months in a New Jersey state prison.

Forrest served eighteen months of that sentence. He was released when Officer Parry later admitted that he had falsified the police report regarding the incident with Forrest. Specifically, Sergeant Morris, and Officers Parry and Stetser were three of five officers that were charged with, and pleaded guilty to, conspiracy to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Officers Stetser and Parry admitted to filing false reports, planting drugs, and lying under oath in front of grand juries, at suppression hearings, and at trials. The investigation into their activities resulted in judgments vacated, charges dismissed, or pending indictments forfeited in over 200 criminal cases. As to Forrest in particular, Officer Parry admitted that he did not observe a hand-to-hand drug transaction, but falsely included that in the report he had prepared.²

C.

While still in prison, Forrest brought this action in federal court in the District of New Jersey. By April 2015, his was one of approximately 89 lawsuits brought against the City of Camden ("Camden") based on the actions of the above-referenced officers. Camden proposed a global settlement for these suits,³ but Forrest opted out. He moved forward with his claims, which included a municipal liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and a state law claim for negligent supervision.⁴ Camden moved for summary judgment on all counts in March of 2015. Despite the breadth of Camden's motion, its brief only mentioned Forrest's municipal liability claim under § 1983.

Forrest responded in kind, with a singular focus on his § 1983 claim. His brief opposing summary judgment divided that claim into two: first, he argued that, through its policy or...