Groce v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 24 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20cv1152 |
| Parties | GREGORY RAY GROCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J.P. JACKSON, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
This case comes before the Court on “Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket Entry 19 (the “Motion”)). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion in part, as it relates to the federal civil-rights claim, and deny the Motion in part remanding the state-law claims to Stokes County Superior Court.[1]
This case originated when Gregory Ray Groce (“Greg”) and his wife, Danita Smith Groce (“Danita” and, together with Greg, “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit in Stokes County Superior Court against J.P. Jackson (“Jackson”) and the City of King (the “City” and, together with Jackson, “Defendants”), asserting state-law claims for malicious prosecution and negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”), as well as a claim for damages under the North Carolina Constitution and a federal civil-rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (See Docket Entry 1-1.) Defendants removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), invoking this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (See Docket Entry 1 at 1.)[2] Upon removal, the Clerk docketed the complaint previously filed in Stokes County. (See Docket Entry 2 (the “Complaint”).)
Defendants answered the Complaint, asserting various defenses (including sovereign immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity) and denying liability for Plaintiffs' injuries. (See Docket Entry 5.) Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery (see Text Order dated Jan. 21, 2021 (adopting joint Rule 26(f) Report); Docket Entry 16 (order extending certain deadlines)), after which Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims (see Docket Entry 19; see also Docket Entries 19-1 through 19-7 (exhibits), 20 (supporting memorandum)). Plaintiffs opposed the Motion. (See Docket Entry 22.) Defendants replied. (See Docket Entry 23.)
According to the Complaint:
Sometime around “December 2018, [Plaintiffs] agreed to sell their inoperable 2001 Honda Accord vehicle ([bearing] license plate XRS 6982) [(the ‘Vehicle')] to Anthony Cecil [(‘Anthony')]” (Docket Entry 2 at 2). With Plaintiffs' permission, Anthony towed the Vehicle to his property, where he repaired the Vehicle, rendering it operable. (See id. at 2-3.) On December 22, 2018, before Plaintiffs transferred the title to the Vehicle to Anthony, Anthony's brother, James Cecil (“James”) operated the Vehicle without Plaintiffs' permission or Anthony's knowledge. (See id.) James used the Vehicle to travel to a Sheetz gas station, in King, North Carolina, where he entered the convenience store, concealed certain merchandise in his clothing, and left the store without paying for the concealed items (the “Incident”). (See id. at 3.) The store manager quickly contacted an officer with the King Police Department (the “Department”) to report the theft of the items (an assortment of candy valued at $13.88). (See id.)
Jackson, an officer with the Department, investigated the Incident at Sheetz, where he observed store surveillance footage that depicted “[James] walking around the Sheetz store, concealing merchandise in his clothing[,] and paying for certain items before exiting the store.” (Id.) At the time of the Incident, James wore a baseball hat that obstructed the view of the top of his head and face. (See id. at 3-4.) Jackson recorded his review of the surveillance video on his body-worn camera, which captured Jackson verbalizing his discontent with the quality of the images. (See id. at 4.) During that review, “Jackson asked the store manager to stop the [] surveillance video so he could at least take a still shot photograph of [James] with his cellular telephone.” (Id.) The photograph depicted only the lower half of James's face and the clothing James wore at the time. (See id.)
After the store manager provided Jackson with the license plate of the Vehicle (which James drove away from the scene), Jackson “determine[d] that the [V]ehicle . . . was owned by [Plaintiffs].” (Id.) “Jackson then accessed [Greg]'s North Carolina driver's license photograph . . . [and] compared [it] with the photograph he had taken of [James]” (id.) from the surveillance video. Based on that comparison, Jackson (mis)identified Greg as the perpetrator. (See id. at 4-5.)
Two days later, without further investigation (see id. at 5), Jackson “requested from a Magistrate, via video conference, the issuance of an arrest warrant for [Greg,] charging him with the crimes of larceny, possession of stolen goods, and concealment of merchandise” (id.; see also id. at 6 ()). At the time of that conference, Jackson did not possess the surveillance video from Sheetz. (See id. at 9.) In identifying Greg as the suspect, Jackson disregarded “clear physical differences between the individual depicted in the Sheetz surveillance footage and [Greg]'s driver's license photograph” (id. at 6-7). Jackson also failed to inform the Magistrate about the limitations of the surveillance video, including his inability to “clearly see the perpetrator's face” (id. at 7), and the fact that he had taken no other investigative steps (like determining whether Greg possessed a criminal history, inquiring into the payment method used by the perpetrator, or attempting to make contact with Greg) (see id. at 6-8). Shortly thereafter, based on “Jackson's false statement(s) and omissions” (id. at 8), the Magistrate issued a warrant (the “Warrant”) for Greg's arrest (see id.).
That same day, Anthony notified Danita about the unauthorized use of the Vehicle by James, explaining that James had wrecked the Vehicle in connection with an incident during which he received charges for driving while impaired and driving while license revoked. (See id. at 8-9.) On December 31, 2018, Danita reported that unauthorized use to the Stokes County Sheriff's Office, prompting the Stokes County District Attorney's Office to bring criminal charges against James “for the unauthorized use of a motor conveyance” (id. at 9).
On February 21, 2019, Deputy A.C. Sawyers (“Sawyers”) of the Stokes County Sheriff's Office traveled to Plaintiffs' residence to serve Greg with the Warrant. (See id.) Sawyers encountered Danita instead, who reported Greg's location at work and the unauthorized use of the Vehicle by James. (See id.) Danita called Greg to advise him about the visit by Sawyers and the Warrant, during which conversation Sawyers told Greg to “come home immediately and submit to [] arrest” (id.). “Sawyers instructed [Plaintiffs] to meet him outside the Stokes County Magistrate's office at the courthouse in Danbury, North Carolina.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs waited for Sawyers at the courthouse, where Sawyers eventually arrived with a detainee who “had ingested illegal drugs at the time of his arrest” (id. at 10), such that he experienced repeated vomiting episodes during his time at the courthouse (see id.) . After Greg appeared before a magistrate on the charges in the Warrant, Sawyers took him and the other detainee into custody at the jail. (See id.) Sawyers obtained fingerprints and photographs from Greg and then released him “with a directive not to go on Sheetz property or else he would be charged with felony trespassing.” (Id. at 10-11.)
Back at home, Greg called the Department to try “to learn more about the [ W]arrant . . . without success.” (Id. at 11.) The following day, Danita likewise called the Department and spoke to an assistant, who listened to Danita's explanation about the physical differences between Greg and the perpetrator on the surveillance video and thereafter watched the video. (See id.) On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs went to the Department to meet with Lieutenant Hale (“Hale”), “[d]uring [which] meeting[ Plaintiffs] told [] Hale about the unauthorized use of the[ V]ehicle by James [] and their belief that he had stolen the candy from Sheetz.” (Id. at 11-12.) The following day, after Hale watched the surveillance video, he contacted Plaintiffs and informed them that he agreed the video depicted someone other than Greg. (See id. at 12.)[3] Hale explained that Jackson had failed to conduct a proper investigation, advised Plaintiffs about the dismissal of Greg's charges, and told them that “Jackson would [] prepar[e] a letter to facilitate the expungement of [those] charges.” (Id.)
Even after Hale acknowledged the misidentification, Plaintiffs continued to experience its consequences. For example, a neighbor reported to Danita the frequent presence of a Stokes County Sheriff's Office patrol car in the neighborhood and advised that a deputy had spoken with her about an arrest warrant. (See id.) Additionally, in March 2019, deputies with the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office executed a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by Greg, during which stop two deputies required Greg to exit his vehicle, given the existence of the (supposedly outstanding) Warrant. (See id. at 13.) After Greg attempted to clarify the situation, the deputies realized their mistake and apologized, but the experience nonetheless caused Greg to vomit when he returned home. (See id.) The Warrant also obligated Greg to discuss the situation with his supervisor at work and resulted in injury to his reputation. (See id.)
For her part, Danita sought medical treatment on several occasions complaining of “malaise, fatigue, elevated blood pressure, myalgia, chest pain, insomnia, diarrhea and headache” (id.), as well as “anxiety and stress . . ....
To continue reading
Request your trial