Harmon v. Salt Lake City
| Decision Date | 10 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-00553-RJS-CMR |
| Citation | 471 F.Supp.3d 1203 |
| Parties | ESTATE OF Patrick HARMON Sr.; Patrick Harmon II, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patrick Harmon Sr. and heir of Patrick Harmon Sr.; Tasha Smith, as heir of Patrick Harmon Sr., Plaintiffs, v. SALT LAKE CITY, a municipality; and Officer Clinton Fox, in his individual capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Andrew G. Deiss, Corey Drew Riley, Deiss Law PC, Salt Lake City, UT, Nicholas A. Lutz, Qusair Mohamedbhai, Pro Hac Vice, Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC, Denver, CO, for Plaintiffs.
Catherine L. Brabson, David F. Mull, Mark E. Kittrell, Salt Lake City Attorneys Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
ROBERT J. SHELBY, United States Chief District Judge This case arises out of the 2017 shooting of a Black man by a white Salt Lake City police officer. An important question in the case is whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity under existing law. While the events at issue in this case occurred nearly three years ago, this Memorandum Decision and Order issues in the midst of an important national conversation concerning race and policing. That conversation was brought into sharp focus by the recent death of George Floyd.
Floyd died on May 25, 2020, after officers assigned to the Minneapolis Police Department responded to a 9-1-1 call concerning an alleged attempted forgery in progress. The interactions between those officers and Floyd have been widely reported and are shown on videos viewed millions of times on social media and television. Those events sparked as many as 2,000 protests throughout the United States and around the world. It is estimated that with between 15 million and 26 million participants in the United States alone, the protests were collectively the largest in our nation's history.
Floyd's death came on the heels of numerous high-profile deaths of Black men and women in interactions with police officers in recent years. These events and others carried the Black Lives Matter movement into the mainstream and invigorated discussion and debate on a wide range of issues surrounding law enforcement and race, including calls in some circles to change the qualified immunity laws this court must apply in this ruling.
The court is cognizant of this moment and the context in which it must decide legal questions presented in this case about the shooting death of a Black man by a white Salt Lake City police officer. Because it would be inappropriate to do so, this court expresses no opinion whatsoever about the current protests, movements, counter-movements, opinions, other cases around the country, the wisdom of current qualified immunity laws, or any other matters touching on the important issues we are grappling with as a nation. Rather, as it is required to do in the context of determining qualified immunity, and as it labors to do in every case, the court attempts in this Memorandum Decision and Order to faithfully apply the precedent established by the appellate courts to the specific facts and arguments here presented by the parties.
On August 13, 2017, Salt Lake City police officer Clinton Fox—a white man—shot and killed Patrick Harmon, Sr.—a Black man. The events leading to Harmon's death were captured on body cameras worn by three officers at the scene. The body-cam footage includes seven critical seconds immediately before the shooting. During those chaotic seconds, Officer Fox observed Harmon resist arrest, begin to flee, turn back towards the officers, assault an officer, begin to flee in the opposite direction, again turn back towards the officers, and—according to Officer Fox—pull a knife before suddenly moving towards Officer Fox who was several feet away. When Officer Fox shot Harmon, he believed Harmon was armed with a knife and coming towards him.
Harmon's estate and children bring five claims against Officer Fox and Salt Lake City: (1) a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Fox pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) a municipal liability claim against Salt Lake City pursuant to § 1983, (3) a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim against both Officer Fox and Salt Lake City pursuant to § 1983, (4) a wrongful death claim under Utah law against Officer Fox, and (5) an Excessive Rigor Clause claim under Utah's constitution against both Officer Fox and Salt Lake City.1
Defendants move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing Officer Fox is entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiffs cannot separately maintain an action against Salt Lake City if the court concludes Officer Fox did not violate Harmon's constitutional rights.2
The court has carefully reviewed and considered the parties’ filings and received oral argument at a hearing on February 6, 2020.3 For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss4 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 28 days should they wish to attempt to replead the claims dismissed without prejudice.
Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss largely turns on the evidence the court is permitted to consider at this early stage of the proceedings and the legal standard dictating how the court may consider that evidence. Most notably, Plaintiffs object to the court considering some of Defendants’ exhibits.5 To clarify how the court determined the relevant facts, the court first outlines below the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard under which Defendants move to dismiss, then addresses Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objection before finally recounting the facts.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).6 Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court will dismiss claims that are inadequately pled – that is, where the complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."7 To avoid dismissal under this rule, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."8 "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."9 In other words, "[t]he allegations must be enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just speculatively) has a claim for relief."10 This does not require "detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."11 Indeed, "[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."12
While the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis is typically confined to the plausible allegations within the complaint, the court may consider "the attached exhibits and documents incorporated into the complaint by reference."13 The court may also consider exhibits that are "indisputably authentic," "central to the plaintiff's claim," and "referred to in the complaint."14 If an exhibit "blatantly contradicts Plaintiff[s]’ version of the events"15 pled in the complaint, the court may "view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the [exhibit]."16
Applying these standards, the court "first discard[s] allegations in the complaint that are ‘legal conclusions’ or ‘threadbare’ recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements."17 Next, the court "accepts as true the remaining, well-pleaded (that is, plausible, non-conclusory, and non-speculative) factual allegations and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."18 But when those well-pleaded factual allegations are "blatantly contradicted" by a properly-considered exhibit, the court relies on the facts depicted by the exhibit.19
Defendants submitted with their Motion the officers’ body-cam videos showing the events leading to Harmon's death20 and frame-by-frame excerpts of those videos.21 Plaintiffs do not object to the court considering the body-cam videos.22 But Plaintiffs object to the court considering the frame-by-frame excerpts, arguing "[s]uch images can be taken out of context or selected to advance a particular narrative."23 The court fails to appreciate any material distinction between viewing the body-cam videos and pausing on significant moments, versus viewing frame-by-frame excerpts taken from those same videos. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not argue the frame-by-frame excerpts are "doctored or altered" in any way.24 Plaintiffs’ objection is OVERRULED. The court will consider both the videos submitted and the frame-by-frame excerpts from those videos.
Applying the standards above, the court now sets forth the facts relevant to Defendants’ Motion. These facts derive from the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and those portions of the body-cam videos and frame-by-frame excerpts that blatantly contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations.25
On August 13, 2017, Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) Officer Kris Smith stopped Harmon, a Black man, for allegedly riding a bicycle without a red taillight.26 The stop occurred sometime at night.27 According to Officer Smith, Harmon initially identified himself with varying and inconsistent names but ultimately volunteered that he likely had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.28 At some point during this interaction, Officer Smith called for backup and returned to his patrol car to run a warrant check.29 Harmon calmly waited while Officer Smith ran the warrant check.30 SLCPD officers Clinton Fox and Scott Robinson later arrived on the scene.31 Officers Smith, Robinson, and Fox are all white men.32
Officer Smith eventually verified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. City of Edmond
...against the naked, unarmed Lewis "at the precise moment[s]" Scherman discharged his firearm. See, e.g., Estate of Harmon v. Salt Lake City, 471 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1219 (D. Utah 2020) (explaining that the court "analyze[s] these factors at the precise moment that the officer used force.") (em......
-
Estate of Harmon v. Salt Lake City
...court's dismissal of its Fourth Amendment excessive force and municipal liability claims. Estate of Patrick Harmon v. Salt Lake City, 471 F.Supp.3d 1203 (D. Utah 2020). The district court dismissed based on qualified immunity. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we rever......