Hammond v. Lapeer Cnty., Case No. 13–15010

• Decision Date: 25 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 13–15010
• Citation: 133 F.Supp.3d 899
• Parties: Stephen Hammond, Plaintiff, v. Lapeer County, James Cummings, and Dale Engelhardt, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

133 F.Supp.3d 899

Stephen Hammond, Plaintiff,

v.Lapeer County, James Cummings, and Dale Engelhardt, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Case No. 13–15010

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed September 25, 2015

Shawn C. Cabot, Amy J. Derouin, Christopher Trainor Assoc., White Lake, MI, for Plaintiff.

Christopher J. Johnson, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 20)

PAUL D. BORMAN

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants Lapeer County, James Cummings and Dale Engelhardt's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 24) and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 26). The Court held a hearing on June 19, 2015. On July 30, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing the appropriate constitutional standard for analyzing Plaintiff's excessive force claims in this case. Defendants filed their supplemental brief on July 30, 2015 (ECF No. 29) and Plaintiff filed two supplemental briefs, one on July 30, 2015 and a second supplemental brief on August 14, 2015 (ECF No. 31). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion.

INTRODUCTION

This action involves Plaintiff's claim that deputies applied excessively tight handcuffs, which they refused to loosen, and used excessive force when escorting him to and placing him in a holding cell, after he was held in contempt of court, sentenced and remanded to custody, following a December 12, 2011, Friend of the Court Bench Warrant Arraignment in Lapeer County Circuit Court, on three separate child support arrearages. The individual deputies and the County now move for summary judgment. Because genuine issues of material fact remain as to Plaintiff's excessive force and assault and battery claims, the Court DENIES the individual Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Because there is no evidence that the County had notice of similar constitutional violations that the County ignored, the Court GRANTS the County's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff was arraigned before Judge Justus C. Scott, Family Court Judge of the Lapeer County Circuit Court, on a Friend of the Court Bench Warrant. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. 1, Transcript of December 12, 2011 Proceedings, hereinafter "12/12/11 Tr.") Judge Scott found Plaintiff in contempt of court on each of three separate child support arrearages, ordered Plaintiff to pay on two of the three arrearages, sentenced him to thirty days in jail and remanded him immediately to the custody of the jail. Id.

A. Testimony of Ms. Potter-Knowlton

The case worker assigned to Plaintiff's cases, Beth Potter-Knowlton, met with Plaintiff before the arraignment to determine if any arrangements could be made on his arrearages. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. 2, October 29, 2014 Deposition of Beth Potter-Knowlton 18.) Ms. Potter-Knowlton testified that she was unable to make any headway with Plaintiff and that, by the time they appeared before Judge Scott, Plaintiff was "a little bit agitated." Id . at 22. She testified that Plaintiff was "curt" with Judge Scott and had "a bit of an attitude." Ms. Potter-Knowlton thought Plaintiff was unhappy that a complainant in one of the child support matters was present in the courtroom. Id . According to Ms. Potter-Knowlton, after Judge Scott ruled and ordered Plaintiff detained, Plaintiff made "some statements," the exact content of which she could not recall, to the complainant in the audience. Id . at 24.

Ms. Potter-Knowlton accompanied Plaintiff out of the courtroom and placed him in a holding cell outside the courtroom and asked for officer assistance to help her get Plaintiff down to lock up. Id . at 25. Typically, if there is "no issue" with the individual who has been ordered detained, they would sit in a chair in the courtroom while Ms. Potter-Knowlton had the order signed by the judge and then she would "do a quick pat down" and take them down the elevator to the lock up for processing. Id . at 27-28. If there "is a problem for some reason," Ms. Potter-Knowlton places the individual in a holding cell and calls for assistance. On this particular day, because of Plaintiff's "agitated demeanor," she placed him in the holding cell and called for assistance to take him down the elevator to lockup. Id . at 28. Ms. Potter-Knowlton could not recall what exact behaviors Plaintiff had exhibited that made her call for assistance that day but noted that she had been "doing this a long time," and had a "gut feeling" that Plaintiff needed to "cool off" and she was not comfortable with him "being without handcuffs" and taking him down the elevator by herself. Id . 29-30.

Eventually, Deputy James Cummings arrived to assist in taking Plaintiff down the elevator. Id . at 32-33. When Cummings arrived, Plaintiff was in the holding cell talking on his cell phone and ignored Cummings' request that he get off the phone. Id . at 33. Ms. Potter-Knowlton recalled that Plaintiff ignored somewhere between three and five of Cummings' requests to get off of his phone. Id . at 33-34. At some point, out of Ms. Potter-Knowlton's sight, Cummings placed Plaintiff in handcuffs. Id . at 36-37. Ms. Potter-Knowlton does not recall Plaintiff complaining about the tightness of the handcuffs. Id . at 37.

After Plaintiff was handcuffed, Cummings escorted Plaintiff to the elevator and Ms. Potter-Knowlton operated the elevator, which required a key to be inserted before a floor could be pushed. Id . at 34. Cummings instructed Plaintiff to get in the elevator facing the rear of the elevator and Plaintiff was twisting from the waist up and resisting Cummings' instructions and asking why he was being made to do this. Id . at 47. Ms. Potter-Knowlton first accidentally pushed the button for the wrong floor and the three of them had to remain on the elevator as it proceeded to the incorrect floor before she could re-insert the key and activate the appropriate floor button. Id . at 40-41. Throughout this time period, Plaintiff continued to look back and ask why he was being instructed to put his face to the rear of the elevator. Id . at 47. Ultimately a "scuffle" ensued between Cummings and the Plaintiff and Plaintiff eventually ended up on his knees in the elevator. Id . at 48. At some point, Cummings made reference to using his taser if Plaintiff did not stop "thrashing." Id . at 49. Ms. Potter-Knowlton was "nervous" during this scuffle on the elevator, that she could have been banged or hit by Cummings or the Plaintiff but does not recall Plaintiff threatening her directly in any way. Id . 49-50. When the door opened on the basement floor at the lock up area, there was another officer waiting to assist Cummings with getting Plaintiff off the elevator, so Ms. Potter-Knowlton went back up the elevator to complete her paperwork. Id . at 51. She remembers generally indicating, once she was back at her office, that there had been an incident on the elevator. Id . at 51.

B. Testimony of Officer Cummings

Officer Cummings recalls that on December 12, 2011, he was called by Sergeant Engelhardt, who had been called by Judge Scott's courtroom clerk, to report to the holding cell area outside the courtroom to help take the Plaintiff into custody. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. 4, October 14, 2014 Deposition of James Cummings 13.) Cummings testified that Plaintiff was in a holding cell when Cummings first encountered him, and was talking on his cell phone. Id . at 14. Plaintiff appeared agitated while talking on the phone and was yelling at Cummings who was ordering Plaintiff to get off the phone. Id . at 14-15. Plaintiff refused three or four verbal commands from Cummings to get off the phone after which Cummings opened the holding cell door and explained that Plaintiff had been remanded to custody and to hang up the phone. Plaintiff then hung up the phone, shoved it in his pocket and "assumed a fighting stance" and "doubled up his fists" and stared at Cummings. Id . at 16. After maybe a minute, Plaintiff followed Cummings' order to turn around and place his hands on the wall so that he could place him in handcuffs. Cummings then handcuffed him behind his back and explained that they were going to go get on the elevator. Id . at 18-19. At this point, Cummings was not able to check the handcuffs for tightness or double lock them (which prevents them from tightening on themselves, id . at 22-23) because Plaintiff was still being "aggressive," and starting to "tense up" and "not wanting to go with" Cummings. Id . at 21. Plaintiff was arguing with Cummings about why he had to go downstairs. Id . at 22. Cummings was not able to check the handcuffs for tightness, by placing his finger between the handcuffs and Plaintiff's wrist, until they arrived downstairs in the lockup. Id . at 23. Cummings testified that Plaintiff never complained that he was in pain or that his handcuffs were too tight. Id . at 23-24.

After Cummings got Plaintiff out of the holding cell to walk to the elevator, Plaintiff once again turned to face Cummings and Cummings just turned him back around, held both of his arms and walked him toward the elevator where Ms. Potter-Knowlton was waiting with the elevator key. Id . at 25. During the two or so minutes that the three of them waited for the elevator, Plaintiff was a little "lippy" with Cummings but not physically resisting. Id . at 26. When they got on the elevator, Cummings told Plaintiff to face the back of the elevator and Plaintiff was "hollering" at Cummings, questioning why he had to face the back of the elevator. Id . at 26-27. Plaintiff complied but once the elevator started moving, Plaintiff suddenly tried to spin around and wanted to argue with Cummings and Ms. Potter-Knowlton about why he was in custody and why he had to go to jail. Id . at 27-28. Cummings turned Plaintiff back to...