Hornback v. Czartorski
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:20-cv-703-RGJ |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2022 |
| Parties | KEVIN HORNBACK, et al. Plaintiffs v. THOMAS CZARTORSKI, et al. Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Alex Hornback (“Alex”), Kevin Hornback (“Kevin”), and Sonya Hornback (“Sonya”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for partial summary judgment on liability for their claims. [DE 66]. Defendants Cameron Wright (“Wright”) and Kevin Dreisbach (“Dreisbach”) responded [DE 70], and Defendant Thomas Czartorski (“Czartorski”) responded separately [DE 72].[1] Plaintiffs replied to both responses. [DE 79]. Czartorski, separately, and Wright and Dreisbach collectively, move for summary judgment. [DE 68-1; DE 69-1]. Plaintiffs responded [DE 76; DE 77] and Defendants replied [DE 81, DE 82]. In addition, Plaintiffs move to exclude Defendants' expert [DE 65] and Defendants move to exclude Plaintiffs' expert [DE 67-1]. Responses and replies were filed. [DE 73; DE 75; DE 78; DE 80]. Briefing is complete, and the matter is ripe. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Defendants' Expert [DE 65], GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert [DE 67-1], DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 66], GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Czartorski's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 68-1], and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Wright and Dreisbach's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 69-1].
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. [DE 40 at 652-53]. A bench warrant was issued for Alex for failing to appear at a contempt hearing in Jefferson District Court on or about March 28, 2020. [DE 66 at 1507]. On April 9, 2020, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Kentucky State Police Troopers, Czartorski, Wright, and Dreisbach, arrived at Plaintiffs' house to execute the bench warrant. [DE 69-1 at 2135]. Because Alex had a history of fleeing, Dreisbach went to cover the rear of the house. [Id.]. Kevin initially answered the door and was joined shortly thereafter by Sonya. [DE 66 at 1507]. Once Kevin confirmed that Alex was home, Wright and Czartorski entered the house. [DE 69-1 at 2135]. Kevin led Wright and Czartorski to the basement where Alex was located. [DE 66 at 1507].
Unknown to Defendants at the time, a video-only camera in Plaintiffs' basement captured the events that unfolded [DE 64 (“Basement Video”)]. [DE 66 at 1509]. Plaintiffs and Defendants give conflicting accounts of what transpired after Wright and Czartorski encountered Alex in the basement, however, to avoid any misrepresentations of the facts, the Court adopts the facts as clearly recorded in the video evidence.[2] See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-82 (2007).
The basement was dark, and thus, Czartorski entered the basement with his flashlight drawn and lit. [DE 69-1 at 2135]. Once Wright and Czartorski entered the basement with Kevin and Sonya, Alex emerged from his room. [Id. at 2135-36]. Wright and Czartorski both claim they instructed Alex to face the wall. [DE 68-1 at 1793; DE 69-1 at 2136]. Alex turned to the wall once Wright guided Alex into the correct position. [DE 69-1 at 2136]. Wright acknowledges that Alex was confused by orders from himself and Czartorski as to whether to place his hands behind his back or face the wall. [Id.]. Alex can be seen speaking to Wright and Czartorski while they give him instructions. [Id.]. Alex removed his right hand from the wall as he turned to face Wright during their conversation. [Id.]. He quickly put his hand back on the wall but moved slightly to his left, where the wall ended and opened into Alex's bedroom. [DE 64 Basement Video at 00:54-00:58]. At this point, Wright made the decision to take Alex to the ground by placing his forearm across Alex's uppermost chest, grasping Alex's opposite shoulder, and performing a twisting, then downward motion. [DE 69-1 at 2136]. Kevin and Sonya remained within two to three feet of officers and can be seen speaking towards Defendants and Alex during the arrest. [DE 64 Basement Video at 00:45-1:02]. Czartorski moved Sonya to the side when Wright took Alex to the ground. [Id. at 1:00-1:03]. While Plaintiffs claim Alex did not resist arrest [DE 66 at 1507], Defendants characterize the takedown as a necessary means to gain control while Alex resisted [DE 68-1 at 1794; DE 69-1 at 2137].
Once on the ground, Alex landed on his side with his arms beneath his body. [DE 64 Basement Video at 1:00-1:03]. To make Alex lay down, Wright struck Alex in the back twice with his elbow. [Id. at 1:03-1:07]. At the same time, Czartorski kneeled over Alex and struck Alex's legs with a flashlight three times. [DE 68-1 at 1794]. Kevin physically restrained Sonya, who attempted to move toward her son after Czartorski and Wright began striking Alex on the ground. [DE 64 Basement Video 1:00-1:07]. Czartorski stood up to motion back Kevin and Sonya before quickly kneeling to deliver a fourth strike to Alex's legs with his flashlight. [DE 681 at 1794; DE 64 Basement Video at 1:04-1:07]. Wright then pulled Alex's hands behind his back. [DE 64 Basement Video at 1:08-1:10]. Kevin and Sonya, who were within feet of Wright and Czartorski in a small corner of the basement, stepped over Alex's legs towards the exit. [Id. at 1:10]. Kevin turned on the basement lights and reappeared shortly afterward to video the interaction on his cellphone. [Id. at 1:10-1:38]. While Kevin is retrieving his cellphone, Sonya steps towards Wright and Czartorski and stands over Alex, which prompts Wright to draw his taser and point it at Sonya. [Id. at 1:08-1:14]. Dreisbach then enters the basement for the first time to handcuff Alex before Plaintiffs and Defendants exit the basement. [DE 69-1 at 2138]. Again, Plaintiffs claim that Alex did not resist arrest [DE 66 at 1508], but Defendants claim Alex's actions constitute resisting arrest while Sonya and Kevin continually interfered with their attempts to arrest Alex [DE 68-1 at 1794; DE 69-1 at 2138].
After exiting the basement, Kevin and Sonya accompanied Defendants outside to their vehicles with Alex, which was captured by a dashcam that recorded audio and video [DE 64 (“Dashcam Video”)]. [DE 66 at 1508]. Although the parties are not within the scope of the video, the audio is recorded. Kevin claims that Wright threatened to charge him and Sonya with a crime if he did not delete the video he took while Alex was being arrested in the basement. [Id. at 1518]. Kevin also alleged that Dreisbach was involved and could have stopped Wright from threatening Kevin.[3] [Id.]. Dreisbach can be heard telling Kevin that “if you intend to put us on social media, we'll just go ahead and charge you so we have something to back us up.” [DE 66 at 1521; DE 64 Dashcam Video at 13:20-13:26]. He also stated that “if you are going to go ahead and blast us [on social media], we will go ahead and charge you so we have something to back up our case.” [Id.]. At some point after Alex was arrested, Kevin deleted the video from his phone and Driesbach allegedly deleted the video from Kevin's trash folder. [DE 69-1 at 2138]. Kevin and Sonya were not charged with a crime after Defendants conferred with their supervisor. [DE 64 Dashcam Video 26:00-30:00].
Plaintiffs asserted four claims against Defendants: (1) First Amendment retaliation by all Defendants against Kevin and Sonya; (2) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by Wright and Dreisbach against Kevin and Sonya for illegal detention and against Kevin for deleting the cell phone video; (3) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by Wright and Czartorski for use of excessive force against Alex; (4) failure to intervene by Wright against Kevin and Sonya. [DE 40]. Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment as to liability on these claims [DE 66] and Defendants move for summary judgment [DE 68-1; DE 69-1]. To support their claims and defenses, Czartorski discloses Dr. William Gaut (“Gaut”) [DE 52] and Plaintiffs disclose Ronald Janota (“Janota”) [DE 53] as expert witnesses. Because the expert reports apply to the parties' summary judgment motions, the Court will first resolve the motions to exclude these experts and then consider all three competing motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs move to exclude Gaut's testimony on several grounds, including Gaut's qualifications, the relevance of his testimony, and his reliability. [DE 65]. Similarly, Defendants argue that Janota's testimony is irrelevant and includes improper legal conclusions. [DE 67-1].
The admissibility of expert testimony is set forth in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 provides:
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., “the Supreme Court established a general gatekeeping obligation for trial courts to exclude from trial expert testimony that is unreliable and irrelevant.” Conwood Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768, 792 (6th Cir.2002) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial