Jordan v. Bishop, Cause No. IP 01-1391-C H/K (S.D. Ind. 12/19/2002)
| Decision Date | 19 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | Cause No. IP 01-1391-C H/K. |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. JORDAN and LINDA L. JORDAN, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT BISHOP; RICHARD WILKERSON; JAMIE GUILFOY; TOBI COBIAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
On April 4, 2000, Indianapolis police officers responded to an emergency 911 call concerning a suicide attempt in progress. When they arrived at the scene, they encountered an unarmed William Jordan standing at the top of a staircase. After attempting to get Mr. Jordan to come down the stairs, the police ran up the staircase, tackled Mr. Jordan, and handcuffed him. During the altercation, Mr. Jordan received multiple blows, including one to the top of his head from a heavy metal flashlight requiring eleven staples in his scalp. He was arrested and charged with resisting arrest. A jury in a criminal trial found him not-guilty of those charges. See State v. Jordan, 49G99-0003-DF-055817.1
Mr. Jordan then filed this action in federal court against the four police officers involved — defendants Scott Bishop, Richard Wilkerson, Jamie Guilfoy, and Tobi Cobian — and the City of Indianapolis. Mr. Jordan seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him without probable cause and by using excessive force against him in effecting that seizure. He has also alleged false arrest and battery under Indiana state law. Linda Jordan, Mr. Jordan's wife, has alleged a claim for a violation of her substantive due process right to bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as a claim for battery under Indiana state law.
Defendants have filed a partial motion for summary judgment. The only claim not at issue in this motion is whether the police officers used excessive force against Mr. Jordan after he was handcuffed. Defendants concede that there is a dispute as to material facts on that claim, which will be resolved at trial. As explained below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to Mr. Jordan's claims of an unreasonable seizure under federal law and false arrest under state law, and with respect to Mrs. Jordan's claims. Summary judgment is denied with respect to Mr. Jordan's claims for excessive force under federal law.
The purpose of summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, leaving the moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party must show there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A factual issue is material only if resolving the factual issue might change the suit's outcome under the governing law. Clifton v. Schafer, 969 F.2d 278, 281 (7th Cir. 1992). A factual issue is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In considering defendants' motion, the court must consider the evidence in the light reasonably most favorable to the opposing side.
With these standards in mind, the following facts are either undisputed or reflect review in the light reasonably most favorable to the plaintiffs. On April 4, 2000, Mr. Jordan was experiencing an unusual amount of stress from his employment and his troubled marriage. W. Jordan Dep. 37-38. Over the course of the day he took approximately two Xanax pills, one dose of NyQuil, and one drink with the equivalent of three shots of whiskey. Id. at 38-40. Mr. Jordan went into a "spiraling depression" and decided to commit suicide. Id. at 41. He called his son and his father to tell them that he loved them, and he retrieved his son's gun. Id. When Mrs. Jordan arrived home at approximately 6:30 p.m., Mr. Jordan was in the kitchen looking at photographs of his family. Id. at 41. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan talked briefly, and Mr. Jordan told her that he loved her and knew that she was going to leave him. Id. at 41-42. He then made a couple of telephone calls, including one to his son Don leaving a message stating that his mother would be needing him soon. Id. at 42. He went to his son's bedroom, chambered a round in the gun, and put the gun to his head. Id. Mrs. Jordan had followed Mr. Jordan upstairs and was screaming at him, but Mr. Jordan pushed her out of the bedroom and locked the door. Id. Shortly thereafter, Don called and wanted to know why his mother would "need him." L. Jordan Dep. 32. Don spoke with his father briefly. When Mr. Jordan hung up on Don, Don called 911. L. Jordan Dep. 34; 911 Tape at 2. After Mr. Jordan had ended the first conversation with his son, however, he unchambered the round from the gun, wrapped the gun in a towel, and handed it to Mrs. Jordan, who hid it in a dresser drawer. W. Jordan Dep. 43. The second time Don called, he had a 911 operator on the line with him. L. Jordan Dep. 34; 911 Tape at 4. During that telephone conversation, Mrs. Jordan told Don that Mr. Jordan no longer had the gun, that she had hidden the gun, that Mr. Jordan only wanted to speak with someone, and that there was no need for the police to come to the house. L. Jordan Dep. 34; 911 Tape at 4.
Indianapolis Police Officers Scott Bishop, Tobi Cobian, Jamie Guilfoy, and Richard Wilkerson were dispatched to the scene. Police Report at 5-6. The versions of events after the officers arrived at the Jordans' home at approximately 7:45 p.m. differ dramatically. The following events all occurred within a few minutes, some happening simultaneously. Mrs. Jordan greeted the police at the front door and informed them that there was no longer an emergency, that she had hidden the gun from Mr. Jordan, and that he only wanted to talk with someone. L. Jordan Dep. 36-37. She also informed them that Mr. Jordan had been drinking after having taken prescription medication. Id. at 54. She further testified that the officers "pushed" their way into the home. Id. at 38. After they were inside the home, however, Mrs. Jordan never asked the officers to leave but informed the police officers that Mr. Jordan was upstairs and showed them to the staircase. Id. at 38-39.
When the officers arrived at the bottom of the stairs leading up to Don's bedroom, Mr. Jordan was standing at the top. W. Jordan Dep. 49; L. Jordan Dep. 40. He testified that he was wearing jeans, a shirt, socks, and no shoes. W. Jordan Dep. 49. Officer Bishop ordered Mr. Jordan to take his hands out of his pockets. L. Jordan Dep. 41; W. Jordan Dep. 74. Mr. Jordan complied by holding his hands in front of him, palms facing out. W. Jordan Dep. 74; L. Jordan Dep. 42. Mr. Jordan also informed the officers that he was not armed. Crim. Tr. 38.
The officers at the scene later testified that Mr. Jordan was acting in a highly agitated manner. Crim. Tr. 65. They talked with him for approximately two to three minutes in an attempt to get him to come down the stairs, which he refused to do. Crim. Tr. 38. At that time, Mrs. Jordan was at the bottom of the stairs with the officers. Crim. Tr. 39. There was some brief discussion of Mr. Jordan's karate abilities. He is a certified third degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do. W. Jordan Dep. 29-30. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan both testified that Mrs. Jordan then attempted to coax him down the stairs by moving up the stairs slightly and motioning to him. L. Jordan Dep. 44; W. Jordan Dep. 50. Mr. Jordan further testified that as his wife did this, he dipped his head so that he could see over his bifocals and started to come down the stairs. W. Jordan Dep. 50-51. At the same time, the officers informed Mr. Jordan that they were going to make him come down, and proceeded to go up the stairs. Crim. Tr. 39. Mrs. Jordan testified that as the officers went up the stairs, she was pushed into the railing of the staircase, injuring her back. L. Jordan Dep. 45-46.
As the officers went up the stairs, it is unclear whether Mr. Jordan was first sprayed with CS/OC, a form of mace and pepper spray, or whether he reacted to the police officers' advance by assuming some sort of defensive position.
Compare W. Jordan Dep. 51, with Guilfoy Dep. 15-17. Mr. Jordan has testified that he "extended" his leg in order to stop the officers, similar to what he does in karate practice. W. Jordan Dep. 51. He also testified that as he saw another officer raise a canister of pepper spray, he put up his arms and turned his head. Id. After he was sprayed with CS/OC, the police officers continued up the stairs and a struggle ensued.
Additional facts are noted below, keeping in mind the standard for a motion for summary judgment, which requires that all record evidence be viewed in the light reasonably most favorable to plaintiffs as the non-moving parties.
Mr. Jordan brings his federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action against "Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." Mr. Jordan contends that Officers Bishop, Cobian, Guilfoy, and Wilkerson violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested him on April 4, 2000. He has also brought a claim for false arrest under Indiana state law. Defendants maintain they are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Jordan's § 1983 and state law claims because probable cause existed to seize him under the Indiana "immediate detention" statute, which authorizes...
To continue reading
Request your trial