Hood v. Upah

Decision Date16 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11-CV-96-LRR,11-CV-96-LRR
PartiesJAMES HOOD, Plaintiff, v. DAVID UPAH and BENTON COUNTY, IOWA, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................2

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.............................2

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.........................3

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD.........................3

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................4

VI. ANALYSIS.......................................... 10

A. Motion for Summary Judgment........................ 10
1. Heck doctrine ............................... 10
a. The relationship between the offense
and the alleged force ...................... 11
b. Whether Plaintiff's Complaint contradicts the facts underlying his conviction.................... 14
2. Issue preclusion.............................. 17
3. Qualified immunity............................ 19
4. Municipal liability ............................. 22
B. Motion to Amend.................................. 29

VII. CONCLUSION ....................................... 31

I. INTRODUCTION

The matters before the court are Defendants Deputy David Upah and Benton County, Iowa's "Motion for Summary Judgment" (docket no. 7) and Plaintiff James Hood's "Motion for Leave to File First Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand" ("Motion to Amend") (docket no. 18) (collectively, "Motions").

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a one-count Complaint (docket no. 2) against Defendants alleging that, on or about September 12, 2009, Deputy Upah used excessive force when he arrested Plaintiff, in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Iowa. The Complaint alleges that Benton County is liable for Deputy Upah's actions because his conduct was in accord with Benton County's policies and practices, Benton County failed to properly train and supervise Deputy Upah and Benton County had knowledge of Deputy Upah's tendency to use excessive force in effectuating arrests. On September 22, 2011, Defendants filed an Answer (docket no. 4) denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses.

On November 30, 2011, Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's excessive force claim. On January 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Resistance (docket no. 14) to the Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 9, 2012, Defendants filed a Reply (docket no. 17). On March 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend, seeking permission to file the First Amended and Substituted Complaint ("Proposed Amended Complaint") (docket no. 18-1). The Proposed Amended Complaint adds two additional counts, alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to free speech and retaliated against him. On March 12, 2012, Defendants filed a Resistance (docket no. 19) to the Motion to Amend. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time for doing so has expired. See LR 7(g). On June 28, 2012, the court held a hearing ("Hearing") on the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motions are fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint because Plaintiff's excessive force claim arises under the United States Constitution and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). To the extent Plaintiff's excessive force claim arises under the Iowa Constitution,1 the court has supplemental jurisdiction over such claim because "the federal-law claim[] and state-law claim[] in the case derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that [a plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding." Kan. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349 (1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Amini v. City of Minneapolis, 643 F.3d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 252 (1986)), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1144 (2012). "[S]elf-serving allegations and denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact." Anuforo v. Comm'r, 614 F.3d 799, 807 (8th Cir. 2010). "To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate [its] allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a findingin [its] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy." Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC, 656 F.3d 782, 801 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Putman v. Unity Health Sys., 348 F.3d 732, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and afford it all reasonable inferences. See Schmidt v. Des Moines Pub. Sch. , 655 F.3d 811, 819 (8th Cir. 2011).

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the nonmoving party, and affording him all reasonable inferences, the relevant facts are as follows.

A. Parties

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Atkins, Iowa, which is in Benton County, Iowa. At all material times, Deputy Upah was an employee of the Benton County Sheriff's Department. Benton County is a governmental subdivision of the State of Iowa and operates the Benton County Sheriff's Department.

B. Facts Underlying Complaint

On September 12, 2009, Plaintiff lived in an apartment with his girlfriend, Rebecca Andersen. On that date, Ms. Andersen's son, Nicholas Andersen, who lived with his father, Steve Andersen, was visiting his mother and Plaintiff. During the visit, Nicholas heard Plaintiff arguing with his mother. Nicholas heard a slap and believed that Plaintiff had hit his mother. Nicholas called his father, Mr. Andersen, and told him that Plaintiff was fighting with Ms. Andersen. Nicholas reported that Plaintiff had slapped Ms. Andersen and that Plaintiff was throwing things across the room and swearing at her. Mr. Andersen told Nicholas to return home and then Mr. Andersen went to the apartment to check on Ms. Andersen. At 9:40 p.m., Benton County 911 Dispatch received a call from an individual in an apartment adjoining Plaintiff and Ms. Andersen's residence. The caller reported loud noise and yelling coming from Plaintiff and Ms. Andersen's residence.

Deputy Upah was on patrol when he received the call from Dispatch regarding the loud noise complaint, and he arrived at the apartment complex shortly thereafter. When Deputy Upah arrived at the apartment complex, Mr. Andersen explained that he had been out with a friend when his son, Nicholas, called him and reported that Plaintiff had slapped Ms. Andersen and that Plaintiff had thrown items across the room. Mr. Andersen told Deputy Upah that he had instructed Nicholas to walk home and that he drove to the apartment to check on Ms. Andersen. Later that evening, Mr. Andersen explained in a voluntary written statement that, when he arrived at the apartment, Plaintiff was "drunk" and "violent" and "threatened" both Mr. and Ms. Andersen. Voluntary Statement, Defendants' App'x (docket nos. 7-2 through 7-3) at 8.

As Deputy Upah approached Plaintiff and Ms. Andersen's front door, which was open approximately two to three inches, he could hear a male voice yelling profanities. Deputy Upah knocked on the front door, identified himself as "Sheriff's Office" and nudged the door open slightly. Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Fact (docket no. 7-1) at ¶ 7; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts (docket no. 14-3) at ¶ 7. Plaintiff met Deputy Upah at the door. Deputy Upah had not had any prior contacts with Plaintiff. Plaintiff opened the door and Deputy Upah observed broken beer bottles on the floor, food that had been thrown around, furniture that had been turned over and a television set that had been knocked over and broken. At that point, Deputy Upah believed the situation involved a domestic assault, and he called Dispatch and asked for additional law enforcement to assist. When Plaintiff opened the door to the apartment, he told Deputy Upah that there was nothing wrong and that he "should get the fuck out of his apartment." Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Fact at ¶ 11; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 11. Deputy Upah asked Plaintiff what had been going on and Plaintiff responded "that he and his girlfriend were getting ready to go 'fuck' and that [Deputy] Upah had screwed that up." Defendants'Statement of Undisputed Material Fact at ¶ 11; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 11.

During the initial contact with Plaintiff, Deputy Upah observed Plaintiff to be upset, agitated, verbal and drunk. Plaintiff confirmed that he was "very drunk." Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Fact at ¶ 12; Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 12. Ms. Andersen told Deputy Upah that Plaintiff had consumed at least a twelve pack of beer in a relatively short period of time. Deputy Upah maintains that he asked Ms....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT