Jones v. Alvarez
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:19CV930 |
| Parties | ZARED KINAH JONES, Plaintiffs, v. S.A. ALVAREZ, J.M. CHAVEZ, K.R. JOHNSON, F.T. WRIGHT, and S.K. FLOWERS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
Before this court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants S.A. Alvarez, J.M. Chavez, K.R. Johnson, F.T Wright, and S.K. Flowers. (Doc. 71.) Plaintiff Zared Kinah Jones filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Plaintiff's Responses to Defense's Interrogatories and Admissions; to Defense,” (Doc. 76), a brief in support of that motion, (Doc. 77), and responses to Defendants' discovery requests, (Doc. 77-1). Defendants have filed a Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's discovery order, (Doc. 82) and a Motions in Limine, (Doc. 84).
For the reasons set forth herein, this court will grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 71), deny Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, (Doc. 76) as moot and treat Plaintiff's discovery responses, (Doc. 77-1), as timely filed, and deny Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, (Doc. 82), and Motions in Limine, (Doc. 84), as moot.
The majority of facts are not disputed, and any material factual disputes will be specifically addressed in the relevant analysis. Additional relevant facts will be addressed as necessary throughout the opinion. This court reviews the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) .
Defendants are police officers with the Greensboro Police Department. (See Ex. A, Decl. of Lieutenant S.K. Flowers (“Flowers Decl.”) (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 2; Ex. B, Decl. of Officer J.M. Chavez (“Chavez Decl.”) (Doc. 72-2) ¶ 2; Ex. E, Decl. of Officer S.A. Alvarez (“Alvarez Decl.”) (Doc. 72-5), ¶ 2.)
On the night of September 9, 2016, Plaintiff and his friends decided to go out in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina. (Ex. C, Dep. of Zared Kinah Jones (“Jones Dep.”) (Doc. 72-3) at 7-8.)[1] Plaintiff and his friends parked on Elm Street and were gathered outside of their car for around five minutes while they discussed where they wanted to go next. (Id. at 9-11.)
While they were standing near the car, Defendants, who are police officers, arrived on bicycles. (Id. at 18-19.) Plaintiff is unsure of exactly how many officers approached his friends and him. (Id. at 19.) Defendants asked Plaintiff and his friends some questions. (Id.) Defendants never told Plaintiff and his friends that they could not leave. (Jones Dep. (Doc. 72-3) at 21; see also Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 11; Chavez Decl. (Doc. 72-2) ¶ 9.) Defendants never touched Plaintiff or drew weapons. (Jones Dep. (Doc. 72-3) at 21-22.) Defendants asked Plaintiff and his friends what they were doing in the area. (Id. at 22.) When Plaintiff asked if his friends and he could leave, Defendants told them that they could leave, and Plaintiff and his friends went to a bar. (Id. at 21.)
Plaintiff went into the bar by himself. (Id. at 24.) He was later kicked out. (Id. at 25-26; Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 15; Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶¶ 5, 7.) Defendants Flowers and Alvarez approached Plaintiff and his friends outside of the bar. (Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 16; Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶¶ 4 6; Jones Dep. (Doc. 72-3) at 27.) After learning that Plaintiff had been kicked out of the bar, Defendants Flowers and Alvarez advised Plaintiff and his friends to leave, but Plaintiff refused. (Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶¶ 15-16; Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 8.) The officers smelled the odor of alcohol on Plaintiff, observed that Plaintiff had slurred speech, was sweating significantly, was not comprehending the activity taking place around him, and was argumentative. (Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 6; Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 17.) Based on Defendants' training and experience, Plaintiff was intoxicated. (Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 17; see also Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 6.) Plaintiff argued with Defendants Flowers and Alvarez and continued to refuse to leave the area. (Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 19; Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 10.) Defendants believed Plaintiff and his friends were blocking access to the sidewalk outside of the bar. (Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 18; Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 9.) AfterPlaintiff continued arguing with Defendants Alvarez and Flowers and refusing to leave the area, Defendant Flowers arrested Plaintiff. (Flowers Decl. (Doc. 72-1) ¶ 19-20; see also Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 11.)
After Plaintiff was arrested, Defendant Alvarez went before Magistrate Brett Moore and described the events that led to Plaintiff's arrest. (Alvarez Decl. (Doc. 72-5) ¶ 13.) The Magistrate issued an order finding probable cause existed for Plaintiff's arrest. (Ex. 1 (“Magistrate's Order”) (Doc. 12-1).)
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, , and Defendants moved to dismiss, (Doc. 22). This court granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Mem. Op. & Order (Doc. 48) at 46-47.) Plaintiff's § 1983 unconstitutional detention and bystander liability claims, as well as Plaintiff's § 1983 unconstitutional arrest claim against Defendants Flowers and Alvarez survived the motion to dismiss. (Id.)
After discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment, (Doc. 71), and filed a brief in support, Mot. for Summ. J. ( ) (Doc. 72)). Plaintiff responded, ,[2] and additionally filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants' discovery requests, (Doc. 76). Defendants replied to Plaintiff's response brief. Mot. for Summ. J. ( ) (Doc. 79).)
Plaintiff moves the court for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. (Doc. 76 at 1.)[3] On March 31, 2022, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to supplement his responses to Defendants' discovery requests on or before May 2, 2022. (Text Order 03/31/2022.) On May 9, 2022, a week after that deadline, Plaintiff attached his responses to Defendants' discovery requests to his brief accompanying his motion for an extension of time. (Doc. 77-1.) Defendants then took ten days to review Plaintiff's discovery responses before they filed their reply brief. (See Defs.' Reply (Doc. 79).)
Pro se litigants are traditionally held to less stringent standards than attorneys, particularly as to pleadings, by the courts. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Although Plaintiff filed his discovery responses a week after the Magistrate Judge's deadline, Defendants had sufficient time to review his responses before filing their summary judgment reply brief. Considering Plaintiff's pro se status, this court will treat Plaintiff's discovery responses as timely filed. Having considered the motion, the court finds that Plaintiff's motion for extension, (Doc. 76), should be denied as moot, and Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' discovery requests, (Doc. 77-1), will be deemed timely filed as of May 9, 2022.
Before addressing the merits of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, this court finds it necessary to determine the extent to which this court may consider the exhibits attached to Plaintiff's response brief. Specifically, Defendants argue Exhibits A, I, J, the email attached to Exhibit K, and Exhibit L are objectionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2). (Defs.' Reply (Doc. 79) at 2.)
Exhibit A and the email attached to Exhibit K are both correspondences from Plaintiff's former attorney, Graham Holt, to the Greensboro mayor and city council regarding the underlying facts of this case. (See Doc. 75-2; Doc 75-11 at 35.) To the extent Mr. Holt's correspondences can be considered an affidavit or declaration, they do not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which requires affidavits or declarations “used to support or oppose a motion” for summary judgment “be made on personal knowledge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4). Mr. Holt's knowledge of the underlying events of this case comes in large part from viewing police body worn camera footage of the events. (See Doc. 75-2 at 2; Doc. 75-11 at 4 ().) Plaintiff does not contend Mr. Holt was present during Plaintiff's interactions with Defendants. Because Mr. Holt's characterizations of the underlying facts of this case are not based on personal knowledge, they are not proper for this court to consider at summary judgment. Therefore, this court will strike Plaintiff's Exhibit A, (Doc. 75-2), and the attachment to Exhibit K, (Doc. 75-11 at 3-5), from the record.[4] Exhibit L is an August 24, 2017 document “Zared Kinah Jone's [sic] Complaint Against the Following Greensboro Police Department Officers.” (Doc. 75-12.) To the extent this document is Plaintiff's affidavit or declaration, it does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 such that this court can consider it on summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1) (). Although Plaintiff has signed the statement, it was not signed under penalty of perjury, (see Doc. 75-12 at 4), making it equivalent to an unverified complaint. To survive summary judgment, Plaintiff cannot rest on unverified...
To continue reading
Request your trial