Greer v. Ivey

• Decision Date: 14 March 2017
• Docket Number: Case No: 6:15–cv–677–Orl–41GJK
• Parties: Randall GREER, Plaintiff, v. Wayne IVEY, Town of Indialantic, James Haman and Diomedis Canela, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

242 F.Supp.3d 1284

Randall GREER, Plaintiff,

v.Wayne IVEY, Town of Indialantic, James Haman and Diomedis Canela, Defendants.

Case No: 6:15–cv–677–Orl–41GJK

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

Signed March 14, 2017

Benedict P. Kuehne, Law Office of Benedict P. Kuehne, PA, Miami, FL, Douglas R. Beam, Riley H. Beam, Douglas R. Beam, PA, Melbourne, FL, Marjorie Gadarian Graham, Marjorie Gadarian Graham, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Plaintiff.

D. Andrew DeBevoise, Thomas W. Poulton, DeBevoise & Poulton, PA, Winter Park, FL, Eric J. Netcher, F. Scott Pendley, Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, PA, Bruce R. Bogan, Melissa Jean Sydow, Hilyard, Bogan & Palmer, PA, Orlando, FL, Bruce W. Jolly, Purdy, Jolly, Giuffreda & Barranco, PA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER

CARLOS E. MENDOZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 174) filed by Defendant Town of Indialantic ("the Town"). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 231), to which the Town filed a Reply (Doc. 237). This cause is also before the Court on Defendant Diomedis Canela's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 183), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 233), and Defendant Canela filed a Reply (Doc. 239), as well as Defendant James Haman's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 194), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 234), and Defendant Haman filed a Reply (Doc. 241). Additionally, before the Court is Defendant Sheriff Wayne Ivey's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 185). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 235), and Defendant Ivey filed a Reply (Doc. 240). For the foregoing reasons the Town's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Canela's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Haman's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant Ivey's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Randall Greer, brings this action as the personal representative of his brother, Christopher Greer,¹ (Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), Doc. 117, at 4), who was shot and killed by Defendants Corporal James Haman and Deputy Diomedis Canela of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office on January 13, 2013. The following is a summary of the undisputed material facts regarding the shooting of Christopher. In the early afternoon on January 13, 2013, Plaintiff drove his truck to the home of his recently deceased parents to clean out the garage, as he was preparing the home so that it could be sold or rented. (Pl.'s Dep. Pt. 1, Doc. 173–13, at 33:24–34:2, 125:16–19, 38:1–25, 48:8–19, 49:5–7; Pl.'s Dep. Pt. 2, Doc. 173–14, at 201:6–7). Christopher had been living in the home, located at 700 North Shannon Avenue, Indialantic, Florida, (hereinafter, "Greer Residence") with his parents prior to their death, (Doc. 173–13 at 9:9–10), and continued to live there alone after his parents died, (see id. at 37:4–6). Later in the afternoon, Plaintiff's wife, Christine,² also stopped by the Greer Residence. (Id. at 52:22–53:11).

According to Plaintiff, Christopher was severely depressed. (Id. at 96:13–23). Christopher was also paranoid, had auditory hallucinations, and was a vulnerable adult who heard voices, feared for his life, and frequently believed people were breaking into his home. (Id. at 27:3–21, 60:7–61:6; Holstine Dep. Pt. 2, Doc. 173–19, at 195:8–17). The Indialantic Police Department received numerous calls to the Greer Residence, many of which were initiated by Christopher, claiming that he heard things at night near his house. (Morris Dep., Doc. 173–22, at 73:6–22). Due to his paranoia, Christopher always carried a knife in a sheath on his belt. (Doc. 173–13 at 62:22–63:6). He also often wore a small knife around his neck. (Id. at 63:9–15). Additionally, Christopher was disabled from a work-related accident. (Id. at 24:18–23).³

About a month before January 13, 2013, Plaintiff visited the Indialantic Police Department and met with Police Chief Troy Morris. (Doc. 173–22 at 76:18–77:1). Morris was aware that Christopher had mental health issues. (Id. 98:11–21). Plaintiff spoke with Morris and another officer, Sergeant Casey, at the police department about his brother's mental health. Plaintiff informed Morris and Casey that he was concerned about the medications that Christopher was taking. (Id. at 81:9–11). Casey suggested that Plaintiff attempt to see Christopher's doctors in person. (Id. at 82:19–22). Plaintiff also inquired about having Christopher Baker Acted. (Id. at 82:22–25, 83:10–17). Morris explained the Baker Act and its limitations to Plaintiff. (Id. at 83:15–17, 83:22–84:6). More specifically, Morris told Plaintiff that "[the Indialantic Police Department] will not Baker Act your brother" and that he needed to go to the court if he wanted Christopher to be mentally evaluated. (Doc. 173–14 at 236:22–237:1; see also Doc. 173–22 at 83:1–9 (indicating that Casey suggested that Plaintiff could seek help in getting Christopher Baker Acted through the court system)). Morris informed Plaintiff that Christopher could not be Baker Acted by the police unless he was a threat, (Doc. 173–14 at 232:11–14), and advised Plaintiff to call the police if Christopher did anything that warranted immediate attention, such as behaving violently, (Doc. 173–22 at 84:15–20).

On January 13, 2013, while Plaintiff worked on cleaning out the garage, Christopher remained inside the home, smoking cigarettes, watching TV, and making phone calls. (Doc. 173–13 at 51:21–24). Christopher was agitated because he was unable to get the pain medications he needed. (Id. at 51:20–21; see also id. 51:3–16). He had been without his pain medication for several days, and it was causing him to be distressed. (Id. at 51:14–16). When Plaintiff was finished cleaning for the day and as Plaintiff was getting ready to leave the house, while standing outside near the front door to the house, Plaintiff reprimanded Christopher for smoking in the house and for not helping Plaintiff clean. (Id. at 56:3–9, 57:9–18, 58:18–59:1). Christopher responded by stating that he was overwhelmed. (Id. at 57:19–58:8). Christopher grew upset and pulled a knife out of the sheath on his belt and started waving it around. (Id. at 59:5–9, 60:2–6; Christine Greer Dep., Doc. 173–11, at 131:25–132:7). Plaintiff warned Christopher that this behavior could cause Plaintiff to call the police and have Christopher Baker Acted (Doc. 173–13 at 59:10–17, 65:7–9), and Christopher responded "don't go there." (Id. at 59:18–19). He continued to wave the knife in the air while hobbling towards Plaintiff. (Id. at 61:15–17, 65:2–4). Plaintiff walked backwards towards the mailbox, and eventually Christopher put the knife away. (Id. at 65:20–22, 66:10–11, 61:20). After sheathing the knife, Christopher walked up to Christine, (id. at 61:20–21), and while talking to her, Plaintiff removed the knife from Christopher's sheath and threw it in the back of his truck. (Id. at 61:24–62:1). Christopher responded by grabbing Christine's throat and stating "I don't need that." (Id. at 62:1–3). Christopher then said he was sorry, went back into the house, (id. at 62:4–5), and Plaintiff called 911, reporting that "my brother just pulled a knife on me and he grabbed my wife and threatened her," (id. at 62:6; 911 Phone Call Tr., Doc. 174–1, at 2). Plaintiff indicated that Christopher had gone inside but that he was coming back out and that he "need[ed]" an officer immediately." (Doc. 174–1 at 2).

Officer Scott Holstine from the Indialantic Police Department was dispatched to the Greer Residence in response to Plaintiff's 911 phone call, (Holstine Dep. Pt. 1, Doc. 173–18, at 46:24–47:2), and was the first to arrive on the scene, (id. at 53:4–6). Holstine was generally aware that Christopher suffered from physical and mental ailments. (Id. at 64:22–65:11). He had previously visited the Greer Residence in response to calls made to the police on a number of occasions and also knew that other law enforcement departments and officers had responded to calls at the Greer Residence. (See id. at 33:16–23, 65:13–66:14). Based on Holstine's prior experiences at the Greer residence, he had come to believe that that Christopher was paranoid. (Id. at 91:18–24; Holstine Dep. Pt. 2, Doc. 173–19, at 158:10–159:13, 195:13–17; see also Doc. 173–18 at 92:1–6). Additionally, Holstine was aware that Christopher was living alone at the Greer Residence on January 13, 2013. (Doc. 173–19 at 195:22–25).

Upon arriving on the scene, Holstine spoke with Plaintiff who reported that Christopher had come at him with a knife and choked his wife. (Doc. 173–18 at 54:5–7). Holstine looked at Christine's neck and verified that there were red marks consistent with being choked. (Id. at 54:7–10). Plaintiff further informed Holstine that Christopher was in the home and needed a medical evaluation. (Doc. 173–13 at 70:24–71:1; see id. 69:11–14). Specifically, he asked that Christopher be evaluated for a Baker Act. (Doc. 173–19 at 120:3–4; see also Doc. 173–13 at 70:19–22 (testifying that Plaintiff told Holstine that they could get Christopher Baker Acted since Christopher had shown a knife)). Holstine asked if there were any weapons in the home, and Plaintiff responded that there were knives and a disassembled cross-bow. (Doc. 173–13 at 72:13–16; Doc. 173–19 at 126:13–17).⁴

Holstine saw Christopher standing inside the front door behind a mesh screen door, approached, and asked Christopher to come out of the house, but Christopher closed the door, saying "don't even think about it." (Doc. 173–13 at 83:1–4, 84:14–20; Doc. 173–18 at 54:13–18, 63:5–14; Doc. 173–19 at 129:6–8). Thereafter, Holstine requested assistance from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office so that he could maintain a perimeter around the home. (Doc. 173–19 at 114:18–21, 124:2–5, 124:14). Holstine also requested that Plaintiff and Christine leave the scene, and they promptly complied. (Doc. 173–18 at 54:20–24; Doc. 173–19 at 218:19–20).

In response to Holstine's...