Fulson v. City of Columbus

• Decision Date: 26 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. C2-91-540.,C2-91-540.
• Citation: 801 F. Supp. 1
• Parties: Fred L. FULSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

801 F. Supp. 1

Fred L. FULSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants.

No. C2-91-540.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, E.D.

August 26, 1992.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Darryl A. Hines, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Glenn B. Redick, City Attorney's Office, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GRAHAM, District Judge.

This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Fred L. Fulson against the City of Columbus, James Jackson, Chief of the Columbus Police Department, Officer James Donaldson and Sergeant Blair Schuler. The individual defendants have been sued in their official and individual capacities. Claims asserted against Franklin County and the Franklin County Sheriff have been voluntarily dismissed.

Plaintiff, who is Black, alleges that on February 22, 1990, he became involved in a dispute with Matthew and Clovis Dawson, who are Caucasian, concerning the payment for some computer equipment which plaintiff purchased from the Dawsons. Plaintiff states in his complaint that the Dawsons threatened him with physical harm, and that when plaintiff attempted to leave the scene, his vehicle was pursued, rammed and run off the road by the Dawsons. When plaintiff exited his vehicle, he was allegedly kicked by Clovis Dawson, and Matthew Dawson threatened him with a handgun. A deputy with the Franklin County Sheriff's Department who happened to be in the vicinity observed the altercation and secured the three men pending the arrival of Sergeant Schuler and other Columbus police officers.

Plaintiff further alleges that he and the Dawsons were taken to police headquarters. Plaintiff alleges that he was not told that he was under arrest, and that he overheard the radio dispatcher state that there were no outstanding warrants for his arrest. At headquarters, the Dawsons were allegedly urged by Officer Donaldson of the Check Squad to file charges against plaintiff for passing a bad check. Plaintiff alleges that he stopped payment on the check when he discovered that the computer was defective, and that there were in fact sufficient funds in the account to cover the check. The Dawsons filed the criminal complaint, and Officer Donaldson placed plaintiff under arrest for the passing bad check charge.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Schuler and Donaldson failed to investigate his assault complaint against the Dawsons. Plaintiff further alleges that he went to the City Attorney's Office and attempted to file charges against the Dawsons, but that the City Attorney's Office refused to pursue these charges on his behalf. The charge filed by the Dawsons was later dismissed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The reason for the dismissal is undisclosed.

Plaintiff claims that the Columbus Police Department has a practice of favoring the complaints of Caucasian citizens over those of Black citizens, and that this policy was ratified by defendants Jackson and the City of Columbus. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Jackson and the City of Columbus failed to adequately train officers to properly prosecute and investigate complaints in a racially neutral manner. Plaintiff further claims that the City of Columbus has maintained a first come, first served policy of filing criminal complaints. Plaintiff also alleges that his arrest and prosecution were unlawful.

This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The procedure for granting summary judgment is found in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), which provides:

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith 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.

The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is genuine, "that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). However, summary judgment is appropriate if the opposing party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See also Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that Liberty Lobby, Celotex and Matsushita effected "a decided change in summary judgment practice," ushering in a "new era" in summary judgments. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1476 (6th Cir.1989). The court in Street identified a number of important principles applicable in new era summary judgment practice. For example, complex cases and cases involving state of mind issues are not necessarily inappropriate for summary judgment. Id. at 1479. Under Liberty Lobby and Celotex, a party may move for summary judgment asserting that the opposing party will not be able to produce sufficient evidence at trial to withstand a directed verdict, and if the opposing party is thereafter unable to demonstrate that he can do so, summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 1478. "In other words, the movant could challenge the opposing party to `put up or shut up' on a critical issue and ... if the respondent did not `put up,' summary judgment was proper." Id.

In responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party "cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant's denial of a disputed fact, but must `present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.'" Id. (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. at 2515). The nonmoving party must adduce more than a scintilla of evidence to overcome the summary judgment motion. Id. It is not sufficient for the nonmoving party to merely "`show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'" Id. (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1356). Moreover, "the trial court no longer has a duty to search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. That is, the nonmoving party has an affirmative duty to direct the court's attention to those specific portions of the record upon which it seeks to rely to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Defendant City of Columbus has moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff cannot prove the existence of a policy or custom upon which to base a finding of liability on the part of the City. A municipality may be found liable under § 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the constitutional violation, that is, where the execution of the government's policy or custom inflicts the injury. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Normally a single unconstitutional action of a nonpolicymaking employee is insufficient to impose liability under Monell absent evidence that the alleged injury was caused by an existing policy. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985). While single decisions may result in the imposition of § 1983 liability, this occurs only when the decision is made by a decisionmaker who possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action taken. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). Municipal liability under § 1983 attaches only where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question. Id. at 483-484, 106 S.Ct. at 1300.

Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a policy of discrimination in the investigation and filing of complaints, as well as a failure to train police officers on the proper way to investigate and prosecute complaints. Where a plaintiff alleges a policy of inadequate training of police officers, such a policy may serve as a basis for § 1983 liability "only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 1205, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Only where a failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice or policy by a municipality can a city be held liable for such a failure under § 1983. Id. at 391, 109 S.Ct. at 1206.

The City denies that the City, the City Prosecutor's Office, and the Columbus Police Department have adopted, approved or enforced the various policies or customs alleged by plaintiff. The City has submitted the affidavit of Deborah Hoffman of the City Attorney's Night Prosecutor's Program, in which she states that the only policy employed in filing criminal charges is whether the complainant has established probable cause. The City has also submitted a directive of the Division of Police which establishes the protection of constitutional rights of individuals as the first goal of the Division.

Plaintiff has submitted no evidence which would tend to show the existence of a policy of racial discrimination in the filing or investigation of complaints, of failure to train police officers to exercise racial neutrality in the filing or investigation of complaints, or of filing complaints on a "race to the courthouse" basis. The facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint do not establish the existence of these policies. As noted previously, a solitary act on the part of nonpolicymaking employees is...