Green v. Strickland

• Decision Date: 21 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 20-601
• Parties: WILLIE FRED GREEN SR., ET AL v. KEVIN STRICKLAND, ET AL
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

WILLIE FRED GREEN SR., ET AL
v.
KEVIN STRICKLAND, ET AL

Civil Action No. 20-601

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

March 21, 2022

HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MEMORANDUM RULING

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In the instant case, seventeen plaintiffs have brought a civil rights suit against twenty-one officers from the Shreveport Police Department ("SPD"), along with the City of Shreveport. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss, filed by the Defendants, in which they seek dismissal of most, but not all, of Plaintiffs' claims against them. Record Document 28. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

To start, the Court observes that while the genesis of the dispute here can be summarized fairly easily, the specific allegations lodged by each Plaintiff against a particular Defendant prove to be more elusive. For purposes of this motion, the Court will accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe the allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.

On May 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs were gathered at the home of Plaintiffs Willie Green and Viola Green in Shreveport, Louisiana for a Mother's Day celebration. Record Document 23, p. 10. In the afternoon, a disturbance broke out at a home across the street (the "Thomas" residence), and SPD officers responded. Id. SPD Officers Holmes and Mosby,

1

both of whom are Defendants in this matter, arrived on the scene first. Id. Plaintiff Javon Tyler, an off-duty SPD officer who was at the Green residence, walked across the street with Willie Green to try to settle the situation. Id. at 11. While the dispute at the Thomas residence was resolved peacefully, the Plaintiffs characterize Holmes's and Mosby's demeanors on scene as "blaise [sic] and lackadaisical" because they allegedly did not want to work a domestic dispute on Mother's Day. Id.

Later that day, another disturbance erupted at the Thomas residence. Id. During that dispute, Plaintiff Tyler confronted an individual wielding a crowbar.^[1] Id. Defendant Mosby returned to the scene, and Plaintiff Tyler informed her that the individual with the crowbar should be arrested. Id. Plaintiffs allege that Mosby instead threatened to arrest Plaintiff Tyler, whom she knew was a police officer within her organization. Id. at 12. Some individuals from the Thomas residence defended Plaintiff Tyler, informing Defendant Mosby that he was not involved in their dispute, but she ignored them. Id

Unfortunately, the complaint is unclear on the events that followed. Plaintiff Johnnie Young, also an off-duty SPD officer who was at the Green residence, somehow became involved in the situation with Defendant Mosby and Plaintiff Tyler. The complaint merely states that "Mosby unreasonably misinterpreted Tyler and Young's efforts to maintain peace in the neighborhood as being acts hostile toward her." Id. The Plaintiffs expressed their criticism of how Mosby handled the Thomas dispute the first time she responded, essentially stating that if the situation had been handled properly, a second

2

disturbance never would have happened. Id. Mosby became upset by the criticism, "was not watching her step and stepped back... and accidentally fell into a ditch." Id. Plaintiff Young assisted her back to her feet. Id. Defendant Mosby, however, believed someone had pushed her into the ditch. Id. at 13. Defendant Holmes then "panicked," perceived Plaintiffs Tyler and Young to be a threat, and called for emergency backup from other SPD officers. Id. Meanwhile, Defendant Mosby threatened Plaintiff Young with a taser. Id. Defendant Mosby called a "code black" over the radio to report she was under attack by a crowd. Id.

According to the Plaintiffs, approximately thirty SPD officers responded to the scene and what happened thereafter forms the basis of the instant lawsuit. The Defendants in this suit are those SPD officers who arrived on the scene and were present for or engaged in "crowd control." Some of those officers actually engaged with some of the Plaintiffs, while other Defendants who have been sued appear merely to have been present at the scene. Similarly, not all Plaintiffs were actually involved in any physical dispute with the Defendants-some were merely present at the scene and witnessed the events.

Seventeen Plaintiffs sued twenty-two Defendants in a wide-ranging complaint organized into nine groupings of causes of action: (1) false arrest, failure to intervene, and unreasonable detention; (2) excessive force and failure to intervene; (3) failure to supervise; (4) failure to intervene, aiding and abetting, acquiescence, active participation, and § 1983 conspiracy; (5) illegal entry, trespass, and destruction of property; (6) municipal liability and officer liability; (7) failure to provide medical attention; (8) state law claims of failure to intervene, false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, negligent

3

retention, battery, assault, and negligent infliction of mental distress; and (9) retaliation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental distress. Plaintiffs'federal claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Record Document 23, p. 1. Plaintiffs invoke the Court's supplemental jurisdiction for their state law claims.

In response to the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. In this motion, they seek to dismiss most of the Plaintiffs' claims, with the exception of the following: Plaintiff Antoine Hardeman's excessive force claims; Plaintiff Torell Lewis's excessive force claims; Plaintiff Tyler's excessive force claims; Plaintiff Hardeman's failure to intervene claim against Defendant Sergeant Strickland; and the Plaintiffs' ninth cause of action, which is Plaintiff Tyler's and Plaintiff Young's retaliation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental distress claims. These claims will not be addressed in this opinion.

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id, at 663. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678. The court must accept as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint in determining whether plaintiff has stated a plausible claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007);

4

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Or. 2009). However, a court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). If a complaint cannot meet this standard, it may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon...