Hyatt v. Miller
| Decision Date | 12 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00250-MR-WCM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | MARCUS HYATT and ASHLEY BARRETT, Plaintiffs, v. QUENTIN MILLER, in his official capacity as Buncombe County Sheriff; WESTERN SURETY COMPANY; J.D. LAMBERT, individually and officially; JEFF MAY, individually and officially; and KATHERINE LEWIS, individually and officially, Defendants. |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hyatt's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 66]; Defendant Miller and Western Surety Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 74]; Defendant Miller and Western Surety Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 75]; and Defendants Lambert, May, and Lewis's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 78].
On August 27, 2019, Marcus Hyatt and Ashley Barrett (the "Plaintiffs") filed this action asserting claims related to searches and seizures that occurred following two separate traffic stops on January 20, 2018. [Doc. 1]. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and a Second Amended Complaint. [Docs. 14, 40].
On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint against Buncombe County Sheriff Quentin Miller; the Buncombe County Sheriff's surety, Western Surety Company; and Buncombe County Sherriff's Deputies J.D. Lambert, Jeff May, and Katherine Lewis. [Doc. 63]. In the Third Amended Complaint: (1) Plaintiff Hyatt asserts false imprisonment and false arrest claims against Defendants Lambert, May, and Lewis (the "Deputy Defendants") in their individual and official capacities; (2) Plaintiff Hyatt asserts assault and battery claims against the Deputy Defendants in their individual and official capacities; (3) Plaintiff Hyatt asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable sexually invasive search in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Defendants May and Lambert in their individual capacities; (4) Plaintiff Hyatt asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment against the Deputy Defendants in their individual capacities; (5) Plaintiff Hyatt asserts aclaim for unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment against the Deputy Defendants in their individual capacities; (6) Plaintiff Barrett asserts false imprisonment and false arrest claims against Defendants Lambert and Lewis in their individual and official capacities; (7) Plaintiff Barrett asserts trespass to property claims against Defendants Lambert and Lewis in their individual and official capacities; (8) Plaintiff Barrett asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Defendants Lambert and Lewis in their individual capacities; (9) Plaintiff Barrett asserts a claim for unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Defendants Lambert and Lewis in their individual capacities; and (10) Plaintiffs Hyatt and Barrett assert a claim for action under the bond against Defendant Miller and Defendant Western Surety Company. [Id. at ¶¶ 42-118].
On October 9, 2020, the Deputy Defendants filed an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. [Doc. 69]. On the same date, Plaintiff Hyatt filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the claims against Defendant Lambert. [Doc. 66].
On October 13, 2020, Defendant Miller and Defendant Western Surety Company filed an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint. [Doc. 73]. On October 19, 2020, Defendant Miller and Defendant Western Surety filed aMotion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docs. 74, 75].
On October 19, 2020, the Deputy Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 78]. On October 23, 2020, the Deputy Defendants filed an Amended Answer. [Doc. 83]. The parties have responded and replied to all motions pending before the Court. [Docs. 84-89, 91-94, 96].
Having been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for disposition.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers, admissions, stipulations, affidavits, and other materials on the record show "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)&(c). "As the Supreme Court has observed, 'this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 519 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)).
"Facts are material when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a genuine issue exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 968 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010)). The Court does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence when ruling a motion for summary judgment. Guessous v. Fairview Prop. Invs., LLC, 828 F.3d 208, 216 (4th Cir. 2016). "Regardless of whether he may ultimately be responsible for proof and persuasion, the party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522. If this showing is made, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must convince the Court that a triable issue does exist. Id.
In considering the facts on a motion for summary judgment, the Court will view the pleadings and material presented in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. Smith v. Collins, 964 F.3d 266, 274 (4th Cir. 2020).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - a party may movefor judgment on the pleadings." A Rule 12(c) motion tests only the sufficiency of the complaint and does not resolve the merits of the plaintiff's claims or any disputes of fact. Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014). A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is analyzed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procure 12(b)(6). See id.; Burbach Broadcasting Co. of Delaware v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2002). A court thus accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party. Id. at 405-06; Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999).
During the period relevant to this case, Plaintiffs Hyatt and Barrett lived together in an apartment in Candler, North Carolina (the "Apartment"). [Doc. 68-2 at 2; Doc. 68-3 at 2].
Sometime before January 20, 2018, an individual contacted the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office to report increased vehicle and foot traffic at the Apartment. [Doc. 68-6 at 3, 8]. The individual spoke with DefendantMay. [Id. at 1-3; Doc. 68-7 at 13]. In response to that tip, members of the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office surveilled the Apartment multiple times. [Doc. 68-6 at 8-9; Doc. 68-7 at 5]. On one of those occasions, Defendant May discovered that a car outside the Apartment had a stolen tag. [Doc. 68-7 at 5].
On January 20, 2018, Defendant May was notified that a new car was at the Apartment. [Doc. 68-6 at 11]. Defendant May ran the car's tag information and learned that it was registered to Brandon Pickens, who had a criminal record that included drug trafficking convictions. [Id.]. Defendant May and Lambert drove to the Apartment to conduct additional surveillance. [Doc. 68-8 at 13]. During the surveillance, Plaintiff Hyatt and Pickens left the Apartment in a car. [Doc. 68-7 at 12-13]. Pickens was driving and Plaintiff Hyatt was in the passenger seat. [Id.].
Defendant May and Defendant Lambert followed. [Doc. 78-1 at 73]. Defendant May was driving a marked patrol car and Defendant Lambert was driving an unmarked car. [Id.]. When Defendant May's marked patrol car got close to Pickens and Plaintiff Hyatt's car, Pickens applied the brakes. [Doc. 78-2 at 8]. Because Defendant May was afraid that he had beendetected, he turned off the road and let Defendant Lambert continue following the car in his unmarked vehicle. [Id.].
Defendant Lambert followed the car for a quarter-mile and initiated a traffic stop at a gas station at 12:34 pm. [Doc. 68-8 at 4]. The reason for the stop is disputed. Defendant Lambert states that he stopped the car because it was quickly changing lanes without using a turn signal. [Doc. 68-7 at 13-14]. Plaintiff Hyatt states that the car never changed lanes after leaving the Apartment until it was stopped by Defendant Lambert. [Doc. 68-10 at 1-2].
When Defendant Lambert approached the car, he asked Pickens to show his hands because Pickens' "right hand was down below his right leg." [Doc. 68-7 at 14]. Plaintiff Hyatt states that Pickens never reached for anything or made any sudden movements. [Doc. 68-10 at 2]. Defendant Lambert told Pickens to exit the car because he was "holding his right hand down below his leg and" he had a "lengthy criminal history." [Doc. 68-7 at 14]. Pickens consented to a pat-down search but refused to let Defendant Lambert search his pockets. [Doc. 68-7 at 5, 14].
Buncombe County Sheriff's Sergeant Chris Stockton, Defendant May, and Defendant Lewis arrived shortly after Defendant Lambert initiated the traffic stop. [Id. at 12]. Defendant May told Plaintiff Hyatt to exit the car andasked to search him for weapons. [Doc. 68-7 at 6]. Pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial