Johnson v. Sootsman

• Decision Date: 01 July 2022
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-1102
• Parties: JOSEPH JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CLAIR SOOTSMAN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

JOSEPH JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CLAIR SOOTSMAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-1102

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 1, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SALLY J. BERENS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff Joseph Johnson has sued Defendants Clair Sootsman, Chantel Einhardt, and Taliah Harris, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims based on an incident that occurred on February 14, 2020 at the Kalamazoo County Jail, where Defendants were employed as deputies. Johnson alleges that Sootsman and Einhardt violated his Eighth Amendment rights by use of excessive force and that Harris violated his rights by failing to intervene to prevent the use of such force. Johnson also alleges a state-law assault and battery claim against Sootsman and Einhardt.

Presently before me are Defendants Einhardt's and Harris's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45), and Defendant Sootsman's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), I recommend that the Court GRANT Defendants' motions as to the Eighth Amendment claims. I further recommend that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the assault and battery claims and DISMISS them without prejudice.^[1]

1

I. Background

On February 13, 2020, Johnson pled guilty to a probation violation and was sentenced to serve several weeks in jail. (ECF No. 45-10.) He was booked into the Kalamazoo County Jail and placed in the intake area pending his classification, which occurred the following day. By midafternoon on February 14, Johnson had been screened for classification and was assigned to a cell in the jail's general population in the B-West wing. (ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.233-34.) As Johnson sat in the common area waiting to be moved to the general population, he became agitated following an interaction with Deputy Miller. (Id. at PageID.234; ECF No. 45-7 at PageID.263-64.) When Defendant Einhardt entered the intake area, she noticed Johnson arguing with Deputy Miller and determined that the situation was quickly escalating. (ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.234.) Einhardt believed that she could calm Johnson by removing him from the situation, and thus told him that she was taking him to his assigned cell in B-West wing. (Id.) Due to Johnson's agitated state, Einhardt asked Defendant Harris to assist her with the move. (ECF No. 45-4 at PageID.199; ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.234.) Deputy Miller eventually joined Einhardt and Harris to assist, if necessary. (ECF No. 45-7 at PageID.266.)

Einhardt, Harris, and Deputy Miller followed Johnson from the intake area into the adjacent hallway leading to the general population areas. Johnson was not handcuffed and was holding his jail-issued property, including a blanket, sheets, a towel, a cup, and any court paperwork that he might have had, in his right hand. (ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.234-35.) At the same time, Defendant Sootsman was escorting two other inmates, who also were not handcuffed, from the intake area into the hallway. The events that occurred next in the hallway are depicted on jail surveillance video.

Sootsman led the way down the hallway, followed by the inmates he was escorting. Johnson was next, followed by Einhardt, Harris, and Deputy Miller. As the group proceeded,

2

Johnson began walking quickly. Einhardt ordered him to slow down and wait for her. (ECF No. 45-3 at PageID.178; ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.235.) Johnson ignored Einhardt's commands and continued walking quickly. (Id.) Sootsman stepped through the doorway and waited for his inmates to do the same, as he looked to see who was causing the commotion behind him. (ECF No. 45-5 at PageID.215.) As Sootsman resumed walking with the inmates, Johnson caught up to them and tried to pass them on the right side, while Einhardt hurried to keep up with him.^[2] Sootsman pointed his finger toward Johnson. Johnson continued to walk for about another 20 feet and finally stopped with his back toward the wall. Sootsman asked Johnson why he did not slow down or stop for Einhardt as she had commanded, but Johnson did not answer. (Id. at 236.) Sootsman repeatedly pointed his finger at Johnson and yelled at him while Einhardt and Harris stood nearby. Sootsman told Johnson that he was “being a pussy” and asked Johnson why he would not “look him in the eyes.” (ECF No. 45-3 at PageID.186-87; ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.236.) Johnson responded in a normal tone of voice, “I am.” (ECF No. 45-3 at PageID.178, 187; ECF No. 454-4 at PageID.201; ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.237.) A second or two later Johnson took a step toward Sootsman and to the right, as if to continue on toward the general population wing. Sootsman interpreted the step as a threat (ECF No. 45-5 at PageID.217), although the other deputies either did not see Johnson take the step or did not interpret it as threatening. (ECF No. 45-4 at PageID.201; ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.236; ECF No. 45-7 at PageID.270-71.) In response, Sootsman immediately extended his arm and pinned Johnson against the wall for two-to-three seconds. Sootsman then turned Johnson around away from the wall and grabbed him around the neck from behind, while Einhardt grabbed his arm, and the two deputies laid him on the ground. Einhardt then put Johnson's arms behind his

3

back and placed him in handcuffs. (ECF No. 45-6 at PageID.237.) Harris assisted Einhardt in handcuffing Johnson. (ECF No. 45-8 at PageID.272.) Sootsman and Einhardt lifted Johnson to his feet, and Sootsman escorted him to the designated wing, where other deputies took control of Johnson. (Id. at PageID.276-77.) Einhardt, Harris, and Deputy Miller walked behind Sootsman and Johnson but had no further interaction with Johnson.

Following the incident, an internal Sheriff's Office investigation found that, contrary to policy, Sootsman had improperly used force on Johnson and that Sootsman had likely committed an assault and battery. (ECF No. 52-3 at PageID.766; ECF No. 52-4 at PageID.777.) The matter was ultimately referred to the prosecutor's office, and Sootsman was charged with assault and battery, to which he pled guilty. (ECF No. 52-5.)

Johnson suffered no visible injury from the incident and did not receive medical care while he was confined at the jail. (ECF No. 45-3 at PageID.180; 52-3 at PageID.766.) He did not see a doctor for wrist or back pain until March 2021-more than a year after the incident and about four months after he filed this action. (Id.; ECF No. 52-12.)

II. Motion Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Material facts are facts that are defined by substantive law and are necessary to apply the law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return judgment for the non-moving party. Id.

The court must draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, but may grant summary judgment when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Agristor Fin. Corp. v. Van Sickle, 967 F.2d 233, 236 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

4

When video evidence is presented, witness testimony will not create a genuine issue of material fact if the video is unambiguous and answers the pertinent factual questions. See Shreve v. Franklin Cnty., 743 F.3d 126, 132 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007)).

III. Discussion

A. Section 1983 Claim

All Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 45-1 at PageID.154-55; ECF No. 46 at PageID.347-50.) “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'” Phillips v. Roane Cnty., 534 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant officer violated a right so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.'” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). The analysis entails a two-step inquiry. Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 957 (6th Cir. 2013). First, the court must “determine if the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right.” Id. (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)). Second, the court asks if the right at issue was “‘clearly established' when the event occurred such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated it.” Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232). A court may address these steps in any order. Id. (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236). A government official is entitled to qualified immunity if either step of the analysis is not satisfied. See Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Husted, 810 F.3d 437, 440 (6th Cir. 2016).

5

In applying the first step of the qualified immunity analysis, a court must identify “the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed” and determine whether a violation occurred. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 (1989). The court considers the state of the law at the second step. As the Supreme Court has observed, “this Court's case law does not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, [but] existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S.Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (internal quotation marks and...