Hill v. Adkins

• Decision Date: 18 November 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–24–HRW.
• Citation: Hill v. Adkins, 59 F. Supp. 3d 814 (E.D. Ky. 2014)
• Parties: Erica L. HILL, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jimmy Lee Hill, Plaintiff, v. Scott ADKINS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of West Liberty, Kentucky, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky

59 F.Supp.3d 814

Erica L. HILL, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jimmy Lee Hill, Plaintiff

v.Scott ADKINS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of West Liberty, Kentucky, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13–24–HRW.

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland.

Signed Nov. 18, 2014.

Edward L. Cooley, Lexington, KY, for Plaintiff.

Jonathan C. Shaw, Michael J. Schmitt, Porter, Schmitt, Banks & Baldwin, Paintsville, KY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HENRY R. WILHOIT, JR., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [DocketNo. 24].The motion has been fully briefed by the parties[DocketNos. 27 and 28] and for the reasons stated below, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be sustained in part and overruled in part.

I.

This case arises from an incident which took place at the residence of Jimmy Lee and Erica Hill on February 22, 2012 which resulted in the death of Jimmy Lee Hill.

On February 22, 2012, West Liberty police officers, Kelse Hensley and Scott Adkins appeared at the home of Jimmy Lee Hill and Erica Hill in response to a telephone call to the local 911 dispatch center.Ms. Hill testified that on the night before, Mr. Hill had been drinking heavily and she did not stay at the home.[Deposition of Erica Hill, Docket No, 21at p. 26].When she arrived home Wednesday morning Mr. Hill was intoxicated and was upset and accusing Ms. Hill of cheating on him.[Id. at p. 27].Within an hour of returning home, she called 911.[Id. at p. 32].When asked by the 911 operator whether or not there were weapons in the home, Ms. Hill responded “Oh, there's a shitload”.Id.Shortly after the call was placed Ms. Hill disarmed Mr. Hill (double barrel shotgun and .40 caliber Beretta).[Id. at p. 38].Mr. Hill walked over and sat down with two knives and said “time to do this”.Ms. Hill asked him not to.The West Liberty Chief of Police, Kelse Hensley, arrived and Ms. Hill met him at the door and walked out on the porch handing him two guns.[Id. at p. 39].Mr. Hill was in the home armed with two knives.Id.She told Chief Hensley that there was no need for police involvement and asked that the police leave but the Chief insisted that there was a need to investigate and that he needed to speak with Mr. Hill.Chief Hensley opened the front door and was met by Mr. Hill who was standing inside the residence with a knife in each hand but with his hands at his sides and the blade of each knife pointed downward in the direction of Mr. Hill's back.Id.

At this time, Officer Scott Adkins was positioned several feet from the front porch.

When Chief Hensley attempted to enter the home to talk to Mr. Hill, Mr. Hill approached the door with both knives in hand and proceeded onto the porch toward Officer Adkins.According to Ms. Hill:

“And they went to come in and talk to him and he was already meeting them at the door holding both knives like this (demonstrating by holding both arms bent at right angles with forearms parallel to the floor)He wouldn't quit walking towards him.I, like I said tried to grab the knife from him”.

“Scotly told him, said “Jimmy stop.Don't come any, don't, don't, come any further, put them down”.And he(Mr. Hill) said “Scott your 9's not gonna do nuthin”. And, he took another step and Scott shot him.”

Id.

Mr. Hill immediately fell to the porch, gurgling, bleeding and unable to speak.Id.

Ms. Hill testified that at the time of the shooting, she believed Mr. Hill and Officer Adkins were 10 to 15 apart.[Id. at p. 47].She stated that Mr. Hill never raised the knives; never pointed the knives and that his hands never left his side.Id.

The deposition of police Chief Kelse Hensley was taken April 14, 2014, He testified that the knives in Mr. Hill's hands were a Gurkha Machete and a stainless steel knife with a blade smaller than that of a machete.[Deposition of Chief Kelse Hensley, Docket No. 23at p. 3].He stated that Mr. Hill's weapons were in a dangerous posture and he was holding them like someone who was experienced.[Id. at p. 16].He opined that the knives “were exactly where they needed to be to lunge an attack.”Id.Chief Hensley heard Mr. Hill tell Officer Adkins “shoot me” and “that nine is not going to be enough”.[Id. at p. 19].Both he and Officer Adkins were instructing Mr. Hill to stop.Id.

Officer Scott Adkins testified that Mr. Hill had a large knife in his right hand and a smaller knife in his left.He was holding them down to his side.[Deposition of Scott Adkins, Docket No. 22at p. 20].He stated that Mr. Hill changed the position of the knives either just prior to exiting the doorway and stepping out or just after stepping out.[Id. at p. 21].Mr. Hill had turned the knife “rearward” in his hand.He turned the position of the knife in his hand from facing outward to backward.He then went out onto the porch, At that point, Hensley is standing in the doorway.[Id. at p. 22].

Officer Adkins drew his gun when he realized that Mr. Hill was armed.[Id. at p. 24].Officer Adkins had known Mr. Hill from his employment at the prison and knew that he had been in the military and was a part of the SORT team.[Id. at p. 14].He knew Hill had training with respect to combat.[Id. at p. 15].Officer Adkins recalled thinking that due to the training that Mr. Hill had, he wasn't sure of what he was capable of doing.Id.

Officer Adkins testified that he held his weapon towards Hill in a low ready position.When Mr. Hill first stepped out he said, “shoot me.”Officer Adkins recalls that he took a step back and asked Mr. Hill to drop the weapons again.Id.Mr. Hill comply with the orders to drop the knives, At that point, according to Officer Adkins, Mr. Hill said “[t]hat pistol may not be enough,” and took another step.[Id. at p. 25].He didn't step off the porch.Officer Adkins estimates there was roughly 10 feet between them.[Id. at p. 26].When Mr. Hill stepped to the edge of the porch, Officer Adkins fired a single round.Id.

Mr. Hill died as a result of the gunshot.Erica Hill, as the Administratrix of his estate, filed this lawsuit against Scott Adkins, in both his individual and official capacities and the City of West Liberty, Kentucky.In her Complaint, she asserted claims for (1) violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.1983 by way of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, (2) negligence, (3) assault and battery, and (4) loss of consortium.

Defendants seek summary judgment as to all claims alleged herein.Plaintiff concedes that the City of West Liberty is entitled to summary judgment and that Scott Adkins is entitled to summary judgment as to the claims against him in his official capacity.Remaining is the claim against Scott Adkins in his individual capacity for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as the state law claims alleged against him.

II.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”The moving party may discharge its burden by showing “that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986).The nonmoving party, which in this case is the plaintiff, “cannot rest on [her] pleadings,” and must show the Court that “there is a genuine issue for trial.”Hall v. Tollett,128 F.3d 418, 422(6th Cir.1997), In considering a motion for summary judgmentthe court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).

III.

A.Qualified Immunity and Plaintiff's Claims Pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983

In order to state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must show that Defendant Adkins (1) violated one or more of his constitutional or federal statutory rights while (2) acting under color of state law.SeeSigley v. City of Parma Heights,437 F.3d 527, 533(6th Cir.2006).If a government official, including a police officer, performs a discretionary function, as here, the qualified immunity doctrine may bar the lawsuit and fully shield the official from liability.Seeid. at 536.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”Humphrey v. Mabry,482 F.3d 840, 846(6th Cir.2007)(quotingHarlow v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396(1982) ).The qualified immunity doctrine protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”Id. at 847.In order to evaluate the threshold issue of whether Defendant Adkins is due qualified immunity under federal law, the Court must first determine whether he violated a constitutional or federal statutory right belonging to Mr. Hill and, if a violation occurred, whether he transgressed a “clearly established right.”SeeHeflin v. Stewart County, Tenn.,958 F.2d 709, 717(6th Cir.1992).In determining whether a constitutional violation based on excessive force has occurred, this Court applies “the objective-reasonableness standard, which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with 20/20 hindsight.”Fox v. DeSoto,489 F.3d 227, 236(6th Cir.2007)(citingGraham v. Connor,490 U.S. 386, 395–96, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443(1989) ).“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense,...