Gatling v. Roland

• Decision Date: 13 July 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-55 (CAR)
• Parties: DEMETRIUS GATLING, Plaintiff, v. SHANE ROLAND, JESSIE MINCEY, and RICHARD MARSHALL BOAN, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia

DEMETRIUS GATLING, Plaintiff, v. SHANE ROLAND, JESSIE MINCEY and RICHARD MARSHALL BOAN, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-55 (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

SO ORDERED: July 13, 2011

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 40]. In this case, Plaintiff Demetrius Gatling ("Plaintiff') brings claims against three Middle Georgia College Police Officers - Defendants Shane Roland, Jessie Mincey, and Richard Marshall Boan - pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that the three officers searched and arrested him without probable cause and sought to justify their search and arrest with false evidence. Through the present Motion, Defendants argue that probable cause did in fact exist for the search and arrest and that, even if it did not, they are entitled qualified immunity.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that, with respect to the warrantless search and arrest, Plaintiff has identified sufficient evidence creating material fact issues as to whether probable cause existed or was reasonably inferred by Officers Mincey and Roland. Plaintiff, however, has not identified sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on the remaining claims. Thus, while Plaintiff's claims against Officer Mincey and Roland for unlawful search and arrest may proceed, Plaintiff's remaining claims for failure to intervene, unlawful search against Chief Boan, and malicious prosecution fail as a matter of law. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is accordingly GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment must be granted if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1090 (11th Cir. 1996). However, not all factual disputes render summary judgment inappropriate. Only a genuine issue of material fact will defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). This means that summary judgment may only be granted if there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party or, in other words, if reasonable minds could not differ as to the verdict. See id. at 249-52.

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this Court must view the evidence and all justifiable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. at 254-55; see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000). The Court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Id. The moving party "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact" and that entitle it to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party discharges this burden, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and present specific evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact (i.e., evidence that would support a jury verdict) or that the moving party is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1577 (11th Cir. 1991); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324-26. This evidence must consist of more than mere conclusory allegations or legal conclusions. See Avirgan, 932 F.2d at 1577. Summary judgment must be entered when "thenonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [his] case with respect to which [he] has the burden of proof." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

FACTUAL HISTORY

The present civil rights case arises out of the search and arrest of Plaintiff Demetrius Gatling in February of 2008. At that time, Plaintiff was a student at Middle Georgia College (MGC) and was known by the campus police department. In fact, just two weeks prior to the incident in question, Plaintiff and his roommate, Robert Chatmon, were stopped by two MGC Police Department officers while they were walking on campus. The two officers, not parties to the present action, pulled their car along side the students and asked whether they had "any drugs, weed, alcohol, knives, guns or any type of illegal objects." The students responded that they did not. One of the officers then requested consent to search them. Although the students refused to give consent, the officers searched them anyway and found nothing. Thereafter, Plaintiff and Chatmon filed a written complaint with the MGC Police Department, and Plaintiff gave a full statement directly to Department Chief Richard Boan regarding the incident. Chief Boan is in charge of the relatively small police department and supervises the 12 or 13 officers employed to patrol the three MCG campuses.

On the evening of February 8, 2008, Plaintiff was again detained and searched by MGC police officers. Prior to these events, Plaintiff, Chatmon, and their three female friends - Whitney Lynch, Jameyka Davis, and Annierose Butts - were sitting his Chatmon's car, which was parked in the lot behind the students' residence hall. Chatmon sat in the driver's seat, Plaintiff was on the passenger side, and the girls sat in the back. While in the car, the students talked, listened to music, ate food from Wendy's restaurant, and shared a "wine flavored" Black & Mild cigar. No rule prohibited students from socializing in the car. It was properly registered with MGC and displayed the proper decal to be parked in that lot.

Nonetheless, MCG Police Officer Mincey and Sergeant Shane Roland were both dispatched to investigate a "suspicious person/vehicle" in the residence hall parking lot.¹ When he arrived on scene, Officer Mincey parked his cruiser immediately in front of Chatmon's car, thereby blocking him in the parking spot. As he approached the car, Officer Mincey saw Plaintiff, Chatmon, and Davis passing the cigar back and forth between them. Mincey leaned down near the driver-side window and asked Chatmon what was going on. Mincey noticed that, as he spoke to Chatmon, Plaintiff failed to look at him; he found this suspicious. As he stood near the car, Mincey could also smell a distinct odor and claims that he believed the smell to be from burning marijuana. Though he did not note it in his incident report, Officer Mincey also claims to have observed smoke rising from beside Plaintiff's leg, as if Plaintiff was trying to conceal a smoking marijuana joint or blunt. According to Plaintiff, this did not occur: Mincey did not see smoke rising from beside Plaintiff's leg while he questioned Chatmon. Of course, if ashes had fallen from the tip of the Black & Mild cigar as Plaintiff passed it to Chatmon, the ashes could have produced some smoke, but Plaintiff passed the cigar to Chatmon before Mincey approached his window. As such, Plaintiff denies Mincey ever saw smoke rising from beside his leg.

Officer Mincey then walked around the back of the car to confirm that it was registered to park in the lot. Plaintiff did not turn around to watch Officer Mincey walk behind the vehicle but watched him in the rearview mirror. He moved in doing this. Officer Mincey claims that from the rear passenger window, he saw Plaintiff put a brown item, which appeared to be rolled, in his mouth.² In Mincey's experience, a "blunt" for smoking marijuana can be made by hollowing out the tobacco insides of a cigar and replacing it with marijuana. Black & Mild cigars are made with a white filter tip,but can be smoked without the tip, and the students admit they had removed the white tip from the cigar. However, Plaintiff was not smoking marijuana, did not have a blunt, and did not put anything brown in his mouth. He was eating french fries that evening, and thus if Mincey did see Plaintiff put something in his mouth, it may have been a french fry.

Officer Mincey then walked to the passenger side of the car, opened the door, and ordered Plaintiff to exit the vehicle. Plaintiff complied and had nothing in his hands as he got out of the car. As he stepped out, however, Officer Mincey observed something burning or ashes on the floor board of the car on the passenger side. Officer Mincey then asked Plaintiff, "Where's the weed ?" to which Plaintiff responded, "I don't have any." Officer Mincey proceeded to pat down Plaintiff and search his pockets. Finding nothing, Officer Mincey ordered Plaintiff to open his mouth. Plaintiff complied, and Mincey put one finger in Plaintiff's mouth, touching Plaintiff's tongue and pushing down on his jaw. He then told Plaintiff, "If you bite my finger, I'll tase you. We're going to have some problems." Plaintiff did not bite Officer Mincey's finger. He did, however, begin to get upset and tried to ask Officer Mincey to remove his finger. Officer Mincey then stuck the end of his flight light in Plaintiff's mouth, forcing it to stay open.

At this point or shortly thereafter,³ Officer Roland instructed Mincey to remove his flashlight from Plaintiff's mouth. Officer Mincey stated, "Here's the weed in his mouth right here. You see it?" Roland replied, "Yes, I see it." Officer Mincey claims to have seen a "green leafy substance" and brown cigar paper in Plaintiff's mouth. However, he later testified that he saw something green and "rolled-up" in Plaintiff's mouth, rather than a green leafy substance, and described it as looking like "dry marijuana, except it was just moist." Later, Mincey gave yet another description of the substance,...