Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights

• Decision Date: 18 August 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:06 CV 1779.
• Citation: 809 F.Supp.2d 719
• Parties: Rodney IRVIN, Plaintiff v. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

809 F.Supp.2d 719

Rodney IRVIN, Plaintiff

v.CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:06 CV 1779.

United States District Court,N.D. Ohio,Eastern Division.

Aug. 18, 2011.

Jaime P. Serrat, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.

Darlene E. White, Gallagher Sharp, for Plaintiff/Defendants.

D. John Travis, George H. Carr, Gallagher Sharp, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER

SOLOMON OLIVER, JR., Chief Judge.

The following Motions are currently pending in the above-captioned case between Plaintiff Rodney Irvin (“Plaintiff” or “Irvin”) and Defendants City of Shaker Heights (“City Defendant”), Mayor of Shaker Heights Rawson, former Chief of Police Ugrinic, Assistant Chief of Police (now Chief) Lee, and police officers Sgt. Mastnardo, Det. Carlozzi, Ptl. Emlaw, Cpl. Pizon, Sgt. Allison, Ptl. McCandless, and Cpl. Gozelanczyk: (1) Sgt. Mastnardo's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47); (2) the other above-named officers' (“Individual Officers”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48); and (3) the City of Shaker Heights, the Mayor, Police Chief, and Assistant Police Chief's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50).

For the following reasons, the court hereby grants in part and denies in part Sgt. Mastnardo's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47); grants in part and denies in part the Individual Officers' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48), and grants in full the City, the Mayor, and the current and former Chiefs of Police's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 27, 2005, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Plaintiff Rodney Irvin was walking home, pushing his two-year-old daughter in a tricycle, near E. 154th Street and Kinsman Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 70.) Irvin saw his former brother-in law, Bob Nance (“Nance”), in a passing vehicle and began a conversation. ( Id. at 71.) Nance handed Irvin his business card. ( Id. at 76.) Aware of the police car behind Nance, Irvin suggested that he pull off the main street and onto 154th Street; Nance did so and the two resumed their conversation. ( Id. at 76.) Defendant Mastnardo, a corporal at the time, was driving that police car accompanied by his canine partner. (Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 53.) He turned as well and drove past Irvin and Nance, and then made a U-turn. ( Id.) He maintains that as he approached, he saw a hand-to-hand transaction between the two men. ( Id. at 57–58.) According to Mastnardo, he believed Nance and Irvin were engaged in a drug transaction. ( Id. at 64.) He parked on the other side of 154th, told the dispatcher he was making a traffic stop, and got out of his car. ( Id. at 59, 68.)

Accounts differ as to whether Mastnardo took his gun from its holster and released his dog on initially leaving the car. Irvin maintains that Mastnardo approached Nance's car initially with his gun drawn and that the dog left the police car at the same time. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 84, 97.) Nance stated right after the incident that the gun was not initially drawn, but at Irvin's criminal trial he testified that the gun was out as Mastnardo crossed 154th Street from his patrol car. (Nance Statement, ECF No. 97–14 at 5; Nance Testimony, ECF No. 97–6 at 423.) Mastnardo maintains, however, that he did not draw his gun until he reached the front of Nance's car, just a few feet from Irvin, after he determined that Irvin was not complying with his instructions and might pose a threat. (Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 70, 72.) He states that he released the dog from his vehicle by remote control later in the interaction. ( Id. at 90.) Mastnardo told Nance to place his hands on the steering wheel, and Nance complied. ( Id. at 70; Nance Testimony, ECF No. 97–6 at 366.)

The specifics of the interaction between Mastnardo and Irvin are also in dispute. Irvin says he forcefully questioned Cpl. Mastnardo's actions in pulling his weapon and allowing his police dog twice to approach Irvin's daughter. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 86, 92–93, 98.) Irvin alleges, with support from Nance's testimony, that Mastnardo told him he was under arrest before there was any physical contact. ( Id. at 101; Nance Testimony, ECF No. 97–6 at 371.) Mastnardo maintains, with support from Nance's testimony, that Irvin was uncooperative and argumentative. (Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 71–72; Nance Testimony, ECF No. 97–6 at 370.) The parties disagree about whether Irvin's hand was in his pocket at any point. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 102; Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 76.)

A physical altercation ensued. Mastnardo asserts that he sharply pushed Irvin in the chest in order to secure Irvin's cooperation in removing his hand from his pocket as instructed. (Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 84.) He says that Irvin then struck him in the shoulder and neck area. ( Id. at 86–88.) Mastnardo says he disengaged to call for faster backup, reholstered his weapon, and only then summoned his police dog for assistance. ( Id. at 89–90.) According to Mastnardo, Irvin then pushed the tricycle into him, tried to punch him, and the two men grappled as the tricycle, with Irvin's daughter strapped into it, fell to the side. ( Id. at 102–106.) Mastnardo asserts that the dog bit Irvin in accordance with its training, in order to protect the officer, and that Irvin repeatedly beat the dog's head against the ground, causing a broken tooth and other injury. ( Id. at 108, 128; see Aff. of Dr. Richard Thompson, ECF No. 47–5.) Mastnardo asserts that the several efforts to subdue Irvin, using precisely aimed strikes to the body and a sleeper hold, had only marginal success. (Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 109–120.)

Irvin alleges that Mastnardo hit him in the chest, that the two men never “tussled,” and that he never struck Mastnardo. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 113.) Irvin states that he was attacked and bitten by the police dog. ( Id. at 104–07.) Irvin describes a tug-of-war with the dog as he tried to prevent the dog from biting him, and he maintains that Mastnardo struck him in the head from behind, knocking him on top of the dog. ( Id. at 105.) Irvin states that he was never put in a sleeper hold. ( Id. at 134.)

Irvin alleges that several other officers, beginning with Defendants Emlaw and Pizon, arrived at the scene and began “hitting, kicking, and stomping him.” (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 121; Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 29.) He remembers being assaulted by Det. Carlozzi, who also allegedly dismissed his expression of concern about his daughter with the words “fuck her.” ( Id. at 124.) He remembers Sgt. Allison being at the scene but alleges no specific actions by him. ( Id. at 134–35.) He is not certain but believes Ptl. McCandless and Cpl. Gozelanczyk were involved in the alleged beating as well. ( Id. at 157.) Irvin acknowledges that he continued to struggle with all the officers while attempting to reach his daughter. ( Id. at 124–25, 157.)

All the backup officers describe an intense struggle to subdue Irvin. (Ind. Def. Affs., ECF Nos. 48–2 through 48–7.) Cpl. Gozelanczyk says that he was the first one to arrive and that at that point Irvin was still on his feet struggling with Mastnardo. (Gozelanczyk Aff., ECF No. 48–6 at ¶ 8.) Sgt. Allison says he joined Gozelanczyk and Cpl. Pizon in grappling with Irvin. (Allison Aff., ECF No. 48–5 at ¶ 10.) Ptl. McCandless avers that he did not have contact with Plaintiff and instead tended to Irvin's daughter in the tricycle. (McCandless Aff., ECF No. 48–3 at ¶¶ 11, 13.) Ptl. Emlaw also avers that he had no contact with Plaintiff and was tasked with searching Nance's vehicle. (Emlaw Aff., ECF No. 48–7 at ¶¶ 11, 15.)

Irvin states that after being arrested, he asked for medical help for his bite wounds and bruises on several occasions over the next few days, but received no real attention, except some aspirin, until several days later at the county jail. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 163.) In contrast, Gozelanczyk avers that he asked Irvin if he needed medical assistance, but Irvin declined. (Gozelanczyk Aff., ECF No. 48–6 at ¶ 13.) The county doctor, a week later, told Irvin that since the wounds were not infected, they would heal without incident. (Irvin Dep., ECF No. 99–2 at 163.) Irvin maintains that the bite wound in his chest became a keloid and still itches on occasion. ( Id. at 161–62.) Mastnardo, meanwhile, had injuries after the struggle that led to his not being cleared to return to full duty until early February 2006. (Mastnardo Dep., ECF No. 97–2 at 23.)

Irvin was charged with felonious assault on a police officer, assault on a police dog, and child endangerment. His Indictment was later amended to include two additional felonies. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 37.) He was unable to post bond and was imprisoned from July 2005 until February 2006. On February 6, 2006, a jury found Irvin not guilty on all felony charges; after a nolo contendere plea, he was found guilty of a misdemeanor count of child endangerment. (Journal Entry, ECF No. 48–8.)

One piece of evidence available for the criminal trial was a compact disc containing surveillance footage from the front of a public works building in Shaker Heights. (Evidentiary Hearing Trans., ECF No. 97–11 at 44–45.) Officers say it showed Irving, Nance, and Mastnardo approaching the scene of the incident but, because of its orientation, could not have captured any of the actual encounter. ( Id. at 10–11, 73). Testimony and physical evidence about the orientation of the camera and the location of the incident corroborate this assertion. ( Id. at 17–21.) Sometime between Irvin's trial and discovery in this action, the CD disappeared from the case file and could not be located. ( Id. at 80.) After a hearing on March 16, 2011, the court determined that its disappearance does not harm Plaintiff's case and declined to issue sanctions against Defendants. (Order Denying Pl. Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 84.)

An anonymous letter making...