Harris v. Goins
| Decision Date | 20 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 6: 15-151-DCR |
| Parties | ALBERTO HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM GOINS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
Plaintiff Alberto Harris seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law theories, including for alleged malicious prosecution, violations of his due process and Sixth Amendment rights, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The police officers responsible for initiating his 2010 arrest and prosecution (for distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 yards of a school zone), their respective employers, and Clay County, Kentucky, are named as defendants. Separate motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant Clay County and Defendant Goins, et al., are pending for consideration. [Record Nos. 82 and 83] Former confidential informant Christina Little, her husband Lonnie Philpot, "Unnamed Law Enforcement Officers" and "Unnamed Supervisors of Individual Defendants" are also named as defendants, but are not parties to the present Rule 56 motions. [See Record No. 1.] The record reflects that Little and Philpot were served with the Complaint [Record Nos. 10 and 15] but have not filed answers or otherwise appeared.
Summary judgment in not appropriate on the malicious prosecution and related claims because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding probable cause to arrest Harris. However, because the named defendants are not proper targets of liability for Harris's alleged Sixth Amendment violation, summary judgment will be granted on that theory. Accordingly, Defendant Clay County's motion will be granted in full, and Defendant Goins's motion will be granted in part.
On September 16, 2010, Plaintiff Alberto Harris was arrested for distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 yards of a school in violation of KRS 218A.1411. [Record No. 1 at 5-7] The arrest was pursuant to an arrest warrant obtained by officers in conjunction with a search warrant for Harris's residence. [Id.] Harris spent two periods in pre-trial detention, interspersed by two periods of bond. [See Record No. 83-8.] Nearly four years later, on September 10, 2014, the charges against him were dismissed when the government's witnesses failed to appear on the morning of trial. [Id.; Record No. 1 at 12] Harris filed the present suit for damages, alleging that his arrest and lengthy pre-trial detention were the result of a conspiracy between law enforcement and others. [See Record No. 1.]
His Complaint contains ten counts. Harris alleges malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, violations of substantive and procedural due process, failure to intervene, violations of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, supervisory liability, conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights, unconstitutional policies/customs/practices/failure to act, intentional/reckless infliction of emotional distress, negligent inflictionof emotional distress, civil conspiracy under Kentucky law, and negligence/gross negligence/recklessness. [Id.]1
In a 2001 civil action, Harris obtained a monetary judgment against Defendant Robinson. [Record No. 1 at 5] Under Harris's theory, Robinson intended to get even and, in 2010, had his chance. According to Harris, Robinson enlisted the assistance of Defendants Goins, Little and Philpot to frame Harris for selling drugs. [See Record No. 1.]
In 2001, Defendant Robinson was a City of Manchester Police Officer, and later became a detective. By 2010, he was employed by Defendant Unlawful Narcotics Investigation Treatment and Education, Inc. ("UNITE") as a narcotics detective. Defendant Goins was a patrol officer with the City of Manchester Police in 2010. Harris alleges that Robinson and Goins obtained the assistance of "known criminal[s]" Little and Philpot to fabricate evidence, obtain Harris's arrest, and keep him incarcerated. Harris contends that Little had a warrant for her arrest in Ohio, and that she and Philpot were inherently untrustworthy as informants. [See Record No. 102.] He also asserts that Philpot and Little had motive to frame him because Philpot previously had been arrested by Goins for selling drugs and was promised that, if he and/or Little worked as informants, there was a chance that his charges would be reduced. Finally, Harris alleges that Goins lied during the preliminary hearing and, at the very least, recklessly omitted facts during his grand jury testimony tocontinue Harris's prosecution despite a lack of probable cause. Harris also claims that Goins fabricated evidence. However, Harris does not suggests Goins's motive for participating in this conspiracy.
The defendants argue in response that Robinson's alleged motive for a nearly decade-old civil suit is unfounded, especially because there is no evidence that Robinson was ever disciplined or otherwise suffered adverse consequences following the 2001 suit. [See Record No. 83; Record No. 106.] Moreover, they assert that numerous citizens had complained about Harris selling drugs out of his residence, which was unremarkable given Harris's past (i.e., he was on parole for a drug conviction). [Id.] In light of those complaints, the defendants assert that they conducted a valid, controlled purchase using Little who was a proven-reliable confidential informant, and that there was ample probable cause to arrest him and seek to continue his prosecution. [Id.]
The following facts are clearly ascertainable from the record. [See e.g., Record No. 83-17 ("Buy Video").] On September 16, 2010, Goins and Robinson outfitted Little with a key-fob style audio/video recording devices and provided her with two ten dollar bills, with the understanding that she would attempt to purchase one pill of Xanax from Harris.2 [Record No.83-1 at 5-6] Acting as a confidential informant, Little traveled to plaintiff's residence in a vehicle driven by Philpot. [Record No. 102 at 7] Little returned a short time later to the officers location in the parking lot of Eastern Kentucky University's Manchester Campus building. Little returned with eight dollars in change and one pill which she claimed was Xanax.3 She informed the officers that Harris sold her the pill from inside his residence. The officers proceeded to call poison control to confirmed that the pill was Xanax.
Goins prepared and submitted an affidavit for a warrant to search Harris's residence based on the drug evidence and Little's statement. [Record No. 83-18 at 20-22] The affidavit attests the CI's statement that Harris had called the CI several times on that date and stated that he had Xanax tablets at his residence for sale. [Id.] The affidavit attests that the CI was outfitted with an audio/video recording device, but does not specify the substance of the videorecording.4 [Id.] It explains that the CI was given two ten-dollar bills, and identifies the serial numbers. It states that the CI left the meeting location and returned a short time later with a white oblong tablet which she stated was Xanax that she had just purchased from Harris for $12.00 at his Pennington Hill residence. [Id.] The affidavit attests that poison control was called and indicated that the table was generic Xanax, a Schedule 4 controlled substance. [Id.] The affidavit attests that the CI stated she entered Harris's residence and he went into the back bedroom and returned with the pill. [Id.]
Harris provided the CI with $8.00 in change for the $20.00 in marked bills. [Id.] The CI then returned the $8.00 to the officers. [Id.] Finally, the affidavit attested to the following independent investigation conducted by the officers:
According to the investigative report and the plaintiff's deposition, Harris was not home at the time the officers arrived to execute the warrants, but he arrived home while the search was taking place. [Record No. 83-18 at 10; Record No. 86 at 25-26 (Harris depo. at 100-101)] Goins's investigative report indicates...
To continue reading
Request your trial