Harris v. City of Kent
| Decision Date | 09 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:20-cv-01045-TLF |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | WILLIAM L HARRIS , Plaintiff, v. CITY OF KENT et al., Defendants. |
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's motions to amend (Dkt, 43, 63), plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 45), defendants Thormburg and JLL Property Management's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 46) and defendants Officer Reed and City of Kent's cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 55). The parties have fully briefed the issues before the Court. Dkt. 43, 45-51, 53-55, 57-63. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motions to amend (Dkt. 43, 63), DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 45), GRANTS defendants Thormburg and JLL Property Management's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 46) and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants Officer Reed and City of Kent's cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 55).
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend seeking to file a third amended complaint. Dkt. 43. While this motion was pending, plaintiff filed his second motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 45. The named defendants in this action also filed motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 46, 55. After the parties briefed the pending motions for summary judgment, plaintiff filed a fourth motion to amend the complaint. Dkt. 63.
Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint is factually identical to plaintiff's Third Amended complaint. The only changes are: plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint adds as defendants Tom Clark and Jason Nixon, based on the same facts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint; the Fourth Amended Complaint adds a claim for negligence based on the same facts. Dkt. 43, 63.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the Court grants plaintiff's latest motion to amend and proceeds with plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint as the operative complaint. In light of the parties' briefing and to prevent prejudice to defendants, the Court will consider the merits of the pending motions for summary judgment as applied to the facts alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint. An amended pleading operates as a complete substitute of the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the Court will only consider factual allegations raised in the Fourth Amended Complaint. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutionally protected rights.
The Fourth Amended Complaint alleges the Kent Police Department is aware that a number of police officers have been intentionally violating people's rights and hasfailed to take action or institute appropriate training. Dkt. 63 at 13-14. The complaint also states that other officers and supervisors failed to intervene while Officer Reed allegedly violated plaintiff's rights. Id. at 13.
Plaintiff alleges that on December 15, 2019 Officers Jacob Reed and Jason Nixon arrested him for having an electrical cord running from his vehicle to an electrical outlet, for failing to exit his vehicle quickly enough and for tampering with a light pole. Dkt. 63 at 16. Plaintiff alleges that the officers used tactical hand control techniques to forcibly remove plaintiff from his vehicle and placed severely tight hand cuffs on plaintiff causing excruciating pain. Id. Plaintiff also claims that his request to speak to Officer Reed's supervisor was denied. Id. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that Sergeant Clark approved of the arrest. Id. at 17.
The complaint alleges that defendant Thormburg knew that plaintiff was not stealing electricity because the light post has "dawn to dusk, cost-saving, kill switch technology." Dkt. 63 at 15. Plaintiff also contends that defendant Thormburg sought to cover his conduct by sending vendors to remove the outlet after plaintiff's arrest. Id.
A. Video Recording
During the events underlying this litigation, Officers Reed and Nixon were wearing body-worn cameras. Dkt. 16, 17, 49.
The footage from Officer Reed's body camera begins while Officer Reed was still in his patrol vehicle, before he approached plaintiff's parked vehicle. Officer Reed's Body-Worn Camera Footage; Dkt. 47-2 at 00:08. The footage shows Officer Reed approached plaintiff's vehicle with a flashlight and attempted to look into the vehicle. Id. at 00:39-00:52. Officer Reed then knocked on the back-passenger side window. Id at00:52-01:03. After knocking, Officer Reed took a step away from the vehicle and put on a pair of gloves. Id. at 01:00-01:16.
After waiting about twenty seconds, Officer Reed knocked on the window again and stated Dkt. 47-2 at 01:16-01:23. Officer Reed waited approximately ten seconds before stating "Okay stop digging around or I'm going to break the window and pull you out." Dkt. 47-2 at 01:23-01:39. From inside the vehicle, plaintiff appeared to say, "I'm getting my shorts." Id. at 01:38-01:39. Officer Reed stated Id. at 01:39-01:43. Plaintiff continued to speak, but it is unclear what plaintiff said. Id. at 01:43-01:45.
Next, Officer Reed said, "You have three second before I break this window." Dkt. 47-2 at 01:45-01:49. Plaintiff continued to state that he was just getting his shorts. Id. at 01:45-01:50. Officer Reed counted one and waited five seconds before counting two. Id. 01:48-01:55. During this time, plaintiff responded, "I'm getting my shorts" and "Come one man I'm a former police officer myself, can't I just get my shorts on." Id. at 01:54-02:03. Officer Reed responded "No, open the door now." Id. at 02:03.
Plaintiff opened the door and repeated "I'm just getting my shorts man." Dkt. 47-2 at 02:03-02:08. Once plaintiff opened the door, it appears that he was sitting in his vehicle covered with a blanket from the waist down. Id. at 02:08. Officer Reed instructed plaintiff to get out of the vehicle. Id. at 02:11. Plaintiff responded, "But I've got nothing on." Id.at 02:11. Officer Reed told plaintiff "Step out or I'm going to drag you out" and counted one. Id. at 02:11-02:13. Plaintiff stated, "I'm a former police officer myself, all I'm putting on is some shorts officer, can I get some dignity and put my shorts on." Id. at02:13-02:19. At this point Officer Reed informed plaintiff that he was being audio and video recorded. Id at 02:19.
Plaintiff reiterated that he would like to put his shorts on. Dkt. 47-2 at 02:25. Officer Reed asked plaintiff where his shorts were located, and plaintiff indicated that they were in the back of the car under the blanket. Id. at 02:22-02:25. Officer Reed declined plaintiff's request, stating "you are not digging for anything inside this car" and instructed plaintiff to exit the vehicle. Dkt. 47-2 at 02:25-02:30. Officer Reed told plaintiff that plaintiff was impeding Officer Reed's investigation and that he would arrest plaintiff for obstruction if plaintiff did not exit the vehicle. Id. at 02:30-02:38.
Plaintiff sat up on the edge of the seat facing out of the vehicle, holding the blanket that was covering his legs, stating that he is a former police officer and that he just wanted to put his shorts on. Dkt. 47-2 at 02:38-02:43. Officer Reed grabbed plaintiff's right wrist and shoulder to guide him out of the vehicle and instructed plaintiff to put his hands behind his back. Id. at 02:43-02:50. Once plaintiff was standing, Officer Reed stood behind him holding plaintiff's wrists and instructed plaintiff to drop the items in his hands. Id. at 02:50-03:00. Plaintiff said that he was just trying to put his shorts on, that he had been parked there for months without a problem and that he wasn't doing anything wrong. Id. 03:00-03:20. Officer Reed explained that plaintiff was impeding his investigation and directed plaintiff to interlace his fingers. Id. at 03:00-03:20.
Officer Reed asked Officer Nixon to assist him in placing hand cuffs on plaintiff's wrists. Dkt. 47-2 at 03:27-03:33. Officer Nixon helped hold plaintiff's hands while Officer Reed applied the handcuffs. Id. While the officers were handcuffing plaintiff, he askedwhy he was being arrested, and Officer Reed informed plaintiff that he was being arrested for obstructing Officer Reed's investigation. Id. at 03:33-03:42.
After the officers secured the handcuff's on plaintiff, while he was still standing next to the vehicle, Officer Reed informed plaintiff that Officer Nixon would grab plaintiff's shorts from the vehicle. Id. at 03:55-03:57. Plaintiff told Officer Nixon where he could find his shorts, Officer Nixon grabbed plaintiff's shorts and assisted him in putting on the shorts while still handcuffed. Id. at 03:57-4:40. Once plaintiff's shorts were on, Officer Reed walked plaintiff to Officer Reed's patrol vehicle, asked plaintiff to sit in the vehicle and read plaintiff his Miranda Rights from a booklet. Id. at 4:40-5:40. While Officer Reed read from his booklet, plaintiff requested that a police sergeant come to the scene. Id. at 05:32. Officer Reed did not respond to plaintiff's request.
After reading from the booklet, Officer Reed explained to plaintiff that he observed electrical cords running from a light pole to plaintiff's vehicle which constituted theft of services. Dkt. 47-2 at 05:42-05:48. Plaintiff responded that if there was an issue with the power cords, he would take care of it. Id. at 05:48-05:55. Officer Reed recorded plaintiff's contact information and informed him that he was being arrested for obstruction. Id. at 05:55-6:58. Officer Reed informed plaintiff that he could request to speak to a sergeant in jail and closed the door to the patrol car. Id. at 06:52-07:00. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial