Harris-Billups v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 10 March 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION FILE No. 1:19-CV-03984-SCJ
• Citation: 555 F.Supp.3d 1328
• Parties: Iwoinakee Gebray HARRIS-BILLUPS, as Administrator of the Estate of Quintas Deshun Harris and on Behalf of Quamere Jadon Harris and Quamillieon Jaden Daniel, Surviving Children of Decedent, Plaintiff, v. Milele ANDERSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

555 F.Supp.3d 1328

Iwoinakee Gebray HARRIS-BILLUPS, as Administrator of the Estate of Quintas Deshun Harris and on Behalf of Quamere Jadon Harris and Quamillieon Jaden Daniel, Surviving Children of Decedent, Plaintiff,

v.Milele ANDERSON, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION FILE No. 1:19-CV-03984-SCJ

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed March 10, 2021

Kenneth W. Muhammad, The Muhammad Firm, LLC, Duluth, GA, for Plaintiff.

R. David Ware, Russell Alan Britt, Hall Booth Smith, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

STEVE C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter appears before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [23]).¹ Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. [26]), to which Defendant replied (Doc. No. [28]). The Motion is now ripe for the Court's review.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court derives the facts from the admitted portions of the parties’ statements of material facts and the Court's own review of the record and determination of what facts are material. See Doc. Nos. [23-8] (Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, "DSMF"); [26-9] (Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts, "PSMF"); [26-8] (Plaintiff's Response to DSMF); [29] (Defendant's Response to PSMF). The Court resolved the parties’ objections to each other's facts as it reviewed the record. If a party admitted a fact in part, the Court includes the substance of the undisputed part. If a party denied a fact in whole or in part, the Court reviewed the record to determine if a dispute exists and if it is material. The Court excludes facts, or parts of facts, that are legal conclusions,² immaterial,³ inadmissible at trial, or not supported by a citation to record evidence.

A. Material Facts

This case concerns the death of Quintas Deshun Harris, whom Defendant Officer Milele Anderson fatally shot during a police encounter. On August 2, 2017, at approximately 11:33 p.m., Officer Anderson responded to a noise complaint in Dekalb County, Georgia. DSMF ¶ 1. Officer Roger Mason responded as the secondary officer and arrived at the same time as Officer Anderson. DSMF ¶ 2. As Officer Anderson parked her patrol vehicle perpendicular to an SUV, she observed Mr. Harris emerge from behind the SUV and approach her patrol vehicle. DSMF ¶ 3. While seated in her patrol vehicle with her seat belt on, Mr. Harris approached Officer Anderson's driver side door and held a handgun to her head, while making comments about "death" or "dying." DSMF ¶ 4. Officer Anderson drew her firearm, and Mr. Harris retreated approximately ten to fifteen feet from Officer Anderson's vehicle. Id.

Then, Mr. Harris ran toward Officer Mason's vehicle while pointing the handgun in Officer Mason's direction. DSMF ¶ 5. Officer Anderson called out to Mr. Harris in an attempt to distract him from Officer Mason, who was still seated in his vehicle. Id. Officer Mason was able to exit his vehicle, and then drew his firearm. DSMF ¶ 6. Officers Anderson and Mason made appeals to Mr. Harris, commanding him to drop his weapon, telling him to calm down, and advising him that this is not what he wanted to do. Id.

Officer Octavius Matthews then arrived in a marked patrol vehicle, and Mr. Harris turned his handgun toward Officer Matthews and approached his patrol vehicle. DSMF ¶ 7. Again, Officer Anderson called out to Mr. Harris in an effort to distract him and allow Officer Matthews to exit his vehicle. Id. The three officers continued to confront Mr. Harris for several minutes, commanding him to drop his handgun. DSMF ¶ 8. Mr. Harris did not comply and repeatedly pointed his handgun at each of the officers and at Mr. Harris's own head. Id. Mr. Harris made statements similar to "I'm gonna kill you" and "you gonna have to kill me." DSMF ¶ 9.

Mr. Harris started to enter Officer Anderson's patrol vehicle and told Officer Anderson that he could drive off in the patrol vehicle. DSMF ¶ 10. Officer Anderson advised Mr. Harris against doing this. Id. Mr. Harris then exited Officer Anderson's patrol vehicle and entered another parked vehicle, during which Officer Anderson took position on the passenger side of the vehicle and Officer Mason took position on the driver side. DSMF ¶ 11. As Mr. Harris entered the driver side of the parked vehicle, Officer Mason observed a gun hit the ground. DSMF ¶ 12. In response, Officer Mason holstered his firearm and drew his Taser, advising the other officers that Mr. Harris dropped his weapon. Id. Officer Mason then observed a second gun in Mr. Harris's hand and advised the other officers that Mr. Harris was in fact still armed. Id.

At this point, Officer Anderson manually activated her body camera, as she discovered it had not been activated automatically. DSMF ¶ 13. Officers Anderson and Matthews repositioned themselves to avoid crossfire. DSMF ¶ 14. Officer Anderson moved to the front of Mr. Harris's vehicle a few steps from the driver side front bumper and Officer Matthews moved within a few steps of the passenger side front bumper. Id. During the incident, the officers observed Mr. Harris continuing to state that he was going to kill them. DSMF ¶ 16. Mr. Harris pointed his gun directly at the officers and his own head multiple times, after which Mr. Harris focused his gun on Officer Mason. Id. During the first approximately seventy-one seconds from the time Officer Anderson activated her body camera, at least thirty-eight appeals, warnings, and commands were made by the officers, including: "Put the weapon down," "Relax," "Calm down," "Put the gun down," "Listen to me, if you want to be recognized, put your weapon down." DSMF ¶ 17.

Officer Anderson's body camera footage shows that at time stamp 00:06, Officer Anderson stated, "Ass should have been fuckin’ shot." PSMF ¶ 9. At time stamp 01:11, Mr. Harris fired his gun at Officer Mason. DSMF ¶ 18. Then, at time stamp 01:12–17, officers returned fire. DSMF ¶ 19. Mr. Harris exited the vehicle and staggered in the direction of Officer Mason at time stamp 01:17–19. DSMF ¶ 20. At time stamp 01:17–24, Officer Mason is nearby screaming repeatedly that he had been shot in the hand. DSMF ¶ 23. Officer Anderson continued to fire at Mr. Harris, causing him to fall to the ground. DSMF ¶ 20–21. At time stamp 01:20–24, Mr. Harris was on the ground with both hands up near his head. Doc. No. [23-4], 01:20–24. At timestamp 01:24, Mr. Harris is writhing on the ground and suddenly moves his arms down toward his torso, clutching his abdomen in pain.⁴ Id. Officer Anderson observed a gun on the ground near Mr. Harris.⁵ PSMF ¶ 23; DSMF ¶ 22. At time stamp 01:25, Officer Anderson fired the final shot at Mr. Harris. DSMF ¶ 24.

Subsequently, Officer Anderson advised the communication center than an officer had been shot in the hand and that a suspect had been shot multiple times but was still alive. DSMF ¶ 25. Officer Anderson also requested Emergency Medical Services for Officer Mason and Mr. Harris. Id. As Officer Anderson and others continued to provide cover, Officer Montezz Gibson pulled Mr. Harris away from the gun lying on the ground near Mr. Harris, after which Officer Gibson handcuffed him. DSMF ¶ 26.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation ("GBI") was contacted immediately and conducted an investigation thereafter. DSMF ¶ 27.⁶ After completion of the GBI and the DeKalb County District Attorney Office's investigations, the DeKalb County District Attorney "determined that there was no criminal conduct related to the actions of the [officers involved in the subject incident]," including Officer Anderson, and therefore, the District Attorney concluded that no criminal charges would be brought against the officers. DSMF ¶ 28. The DeKalb County Police Department Internal Review Board also conducted an independent⁷ investigation of the officers’ conduct. DSMF ¶ 29. The Internal Review Board consisted of seven senior level DeKalb County police officers, six of whom voted unanimously in finding that Officer Anderson's use of deadly force was justified. DSMF ¶ 30.⁸ Members of the Internal Review Board noted that Officer Anderson did not violate any state law or local policy, rule, or regulation and that she did a "great job." DSMF ¶ 31.

Plaintiff retained former full-time police officer and current tenured Professor of Criminal Justice, Gregory G. Gilbertson, to offer an expert opinion as to whether Officer Anderson's final shot was excessive and unreasonable. PSMF ¶ 6. Professor Gilbertson stated that Mr. Harris was "incapacitated when he falls to the ground after the second volley of gunfire."⁹ PSMF ¶ 7. Professor Gilbertson further opined that, "The video clearly represents the fact Officer Anderson moves towards Harris as he lay wounded and huddled upon the ground before firing the final round at close range."¹⁰ PSMF ¶ 8. Lastly, Professor Gilbertson found there to be a sufficient pause between the second volley of shots and the final shot for Officer Anderson to observe that Mr. Harris was "defeated by gunfire, had no weapon in his hand, is wounded and laying huddled on the ground."¹¹ PSMF ¶ 11.

Officer Anderson retained Louis M. Dekmar, Chief of Police for the City of LaGrange, Georgia, who proffered expert opinions on the subject incident. DSMF ¶ 32. Chief Dekmar found that "after being shot, Harris continued to move towards Officer Mason, prompting Officer Anderson to fire another shot to stop the threat of danger created by Harris."¹² DSMF ¶ 33. Chief Dekmar further stated, "Prior to Officer Anderson's final shot, Harris made an overt movement towards Officer Mason, in an area where Officer Anderson was aware there were two firearms, [and] she was challenged by darkness and shadows created by the illuminated parking lot ...." PSMF ¶ 3.¹³

B. Complaint and Parties’ Summary Judgment Arguments

Plaintiff, as administrator of the decedent's estate and on behalf of the decedent's surviving children, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 5, 2019, alleging violations of the decedent's...