King v. Montgomery Cnty.

• Decision Date: 16 April 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 3:17-cv-01116,3:17-cv-01116
• Parties: CINDY LEANN KING, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, JOHN MATOS, Individually; JESSICA COOK, Individually; and JEANETTE FARRELL, Individually. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

CINDY LEANN KING, Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, JOHN MATOS, Individually;
JESSICA COOK, Individually;
and JEANETTE FARRELL, Individually. Defendants.

NO. 3:17-cv-01116

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

April 16, 2019

JUDGE CAMPBELL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court are five motions for summary judgment: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 143), Defendant Montgomery County, Tennessee's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 76), Defendant John Matos's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 149), Defendant Jessica Cook's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 152), and Defendant Jeannette Farrell's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 151).

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Search and Seizure

In August 2016, Plaintiff Cindy King lived in Clarksville, Tennessee, at 3637 Aurora Drive.¹ (Doc. No. 161-2 at ¶1.) Plaintiff owned dogs and fostered dogs for animal rescue groups. On August 8, 2016, she was keeping fifteen dogs at the residence on Aurora Drive. Plaintiff alleges

Page 2

she owned nine of the dogs and that she was fostering six dogs for rescue groups.² Plaintiff planned to travel to Kentucky on August 8, 2016, to visit her mother, who was having heart surgery, and she arranged for people to care for the dogs while she was away. Ten dogs were taken to stay with Carolyn Will, Honesty Patrick, and Stacey Seery.³ (Doc. No. 157-4 at 64-66.) Trisha Davids agreed to check on the five dogs left at the house.⁴ (Id. at 68-70.)

Plaintiff left for Kentucky on the morning of August 8, 2016. (Doc. No. 164 at ¶12.) On her way, Plaintiff was stopped for speeding in Ohio County, Kentucky, and was taken into custody on an outstanding bench warrant. (Id. at ¶13.) Carolyn Will says that Plaintiff called her after the arrest, very upset and crying and told her that she had been arrested in Kentucky and "somebody needs to check on the dogs at my house." (Doc. No. 157-7 at ¶5.) Ms. Will says that Plaintiff asked her to call Trisha Davids about the dogs. (Id.) Ms. Will stated that she believed she was being asked to make sure the dogs were being cared for and that she had permission to check on the dogs in the house if needed. (Id.) After Plaintiff's arrest, Ms. Davids also spoke with her about the dogs. (Doc. No. 149-9 at 3.) Ms. Davids told Plaintiff that she would be unable to check on the dogs and asked if it was ok for Carolyn Will to check on the dogs instead. (Id.) Ms. Will and Ms. Davids then spoke by telephone about the care of the dogs and Ms. Will agreed that she would

Page 3

go to the house and check on them. (Doc. No. 157-7 at ¶6.) Ms. Davids gave Ms. Will the address and instructions for entering the house through the back door. (Id.)

Ms. Will and her husband went to Plaintiff's house on the evening of August 8. Ms. Will says that she could smell "a foul odor of feces and urine," as soon as she stepped out of her car. (Id. at ¶ 8.) She stated, "When I opened the back door to the residence, my husband and I immediately gagged, and we recoiled from the pungent smell of decaying feces and urine emanating from inside the residence." (Id. at ¶ 9.) They entered the house and saw "complete disarray, with trash and debris lying throughout." (Id. at ¶ 10.) She saw one dog in a cage without access to food or water, one dog that she thought appeared to need medical attention⁵, other dogs running around, and "massive amounts of feces and urine scattered throughout the residence, so much so that it was impossible to walk without stepping in feces or urine." Id. Ms. Will took twelve photographs of the conditions in and around the residence and then she called 911. (Id.; See also, Doc. No. 149-1, Ex. 1.)

Officer John Matos received the 911 dispatch call. (Doc. No. 149-5 at ¶ 2.) The operator informed him that the 911 caller was dog sitting, that the resident was dog rescuer, that the caller had entered the home to check on the dogs and found it "disgusting" with "feces everywhere," and that the resident was under arrest and in police custody elsewhere. (Id.; Doc. No. 149-1, Ex. 1.) When Officer Matos arrived at the residence, Ms. Will and her husband were waiting outside near the driveway. (Doc. No. 149-5 at ¶ 3; Doc. No. 157-7 at ¶ 12.) Ms. Will told Officer Matos that she and her husband had been inside the house, that there was at least one dog inside in need of

Page 4

immediate medical attention, dogs with no access to water⁶, no food available to any of the dogs, extensive amounts of animal feces throughout, and a powerful stench of feces and urine throughout the residence. (Id.) Ms. Will told Officer Matos that she was caring for Plaintiff's dogs and that she had permission to enter the residence and that Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated in Kentucky. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4; Doc. No. 157-7 at ¶ 13.) Officer Matos testified he could smell the odor of ammonia, which he associated with feces and urine, from outside the house, and the smell grew stronger as he approached the house. (Doc. No. 146-6 at 27; Doc. No. 149-5 at ¶7.)

Ms. Will then led Officer Matos to the back of the house and opened the unlocked back door. (Doc. No. 149-5 at ¶ 9; Doc. No. 157-7 at ¶ 7.) From outside the door, Officer Matos smelled the "overpowering" odor of ammonia coming from within the residence. (Doc. No. 149-5 at ¶ 9.)⁷ Through the doorway he observed a caged dog without food or water, two loose dogs, a half-empty water bowl, and a large amount of trash and debris he believed posed an immediate threat to the health, safety, and well-being of the dogs inside the house. (Id.)

Officer Matos then entered the house and found it was full of trash and debris, and covered in feces and urine. (Id. at ¶¶11-12.) He stated that the ammonia odor was so strong that he had trouble breathing and his throat, nose, and eyes burned. (Id. at ¶ 11.) He observed some dogs in cages and some dogs roaming free in the house. (Id. at ¶ 12.) He found one dog trapped in an upstairs bonus room that was "absolutely covered" in feces. (Id.) He observed there was no food available or accessible to the dog and that several of the dogs were without access to water. (Id.)

Page 5

The refrigerator was full of cockroaches. (Id. at 13.) Officer Matos took five photographs of the interior of the house, for his investigation report. (Id. at ¶ 16; Id. at Ex. 2.)

Officer Matos contacted his supervisor and explained his observations, and his supervisor told him to contact Montgomery County Animal Control. (Doc. No. 149-6 at 14.) Jessica Cook, an animal control officer with Montgomery County Animal Control ("MCAC"), received the call from Officer Matos. (Doc. No. 157-3 at ¶ 6-8; Doc. No. 157-1 at 31-32.) She went to the residence and met Carolyn Will and Officer Matos. (Doc. No. 153-7 at ¶ 12-15.) Officer Matos told Officer Cook that Ms. Will was a pet-sitter and Plaintiff was incarcerated in Kentucky; he also conveyed his observations of the condition of the residence and the dogs inside. (Id.) Ms. Will let Officer Cook into the house to do a welfare check of the dogs. (Id. at 38.) Officer Cook observed the condition of the house and called her supervisor, Jeanette Farrell, Director of MCAC. (Id. at 39.) Director Farrell instructed her to take photos of the dogs and the condition of the house. (Id.) Officer Cook texted the photos to Director Farrell. (Doc. No. 158-6 at ¶ 4.)

After viewing the conditions in the house, Officer Cook determined the amount of feces and urine present in the residence created a biohazard environment for the dogs and that continued exposure could result in illness or death. (Doc. No. 157-3 at ¶¶ 17-19.) Additionally, Officer Cook stated concerns that some of the dogs needed medical care: many of the dogs had very long nails, one had a skin condition, and another was believed to have a bad ear infection. (Doc. No. 157-3 at ¶ 37 (Cook Decl.).) Ultimately, none of the dogs recevied emergency veterinary care. (Doc. No. 157-1 at 57 (Cook Depo.).)

While Officer Cook was still at the house collecting the dogs, Trisha Davids arrived to "check on things." (Doc. No. 157-3 at ¶ 34; Doc. No. 157-6 at 2.) She helped Officer Cook and Ms. Wills round up the remaining dogs. (Doc. No. 157-6 at 3.)

Page 6

Upon leaving the residence, Officer Cook left a notice on the front door. (Doc. No. 157-3 at ¶ 38; Doc. No. 175-2.) The notice stated: "An Animal Control Officer visited your home today and found you not at home. A report has been filed with our department regarding your animal(s). Your animal has been taken to the Montgomery County Animal Care and Control (Description: 5 dogs); [Signed and Dated] Cook, August 8, 2016, 11:18." (Doc. No. 175-2.) Officer Cook stated she attempted to contact Plaintiff prior to removing the dogs, but that the phone number she had on file was not working. (Doc. No. 157-3 at ¶¶ 26-27.) Officer Matos stated he did not attempt to call Plaintiff that evening because she was incarcerated. (Doc. No. 149-6 at 20.)

The next morning, on August 9, 2016, Honesty Patrick and Carolyn Will surrendered the seven dogs in their care to MCAC. (Doc. No. 158-6 at ¶ 9.) That same day MCAC began to locate the owners of the twelve dogs in its care at the time.⁸ (Doc. No. 158-6 at ¶ 10.) MCAC determined Oscar⁹ was owned by the rescue organization Paw's Angels, and two other dogs, Sheba and Journey,¹⁰ were owned by the rescue organization Chinese Shar-Pei Network ("CSN"). (Id.) These three dogs were release to their deemed owners that day.

The following day, August 10, 2016, CSN contacted MCAC about three dogs owned by CSN that were being fostered by Plaintiff, but were not yet in the custody of MCAC. (Id.) CSN informed MCAC that it had revoked Plaintiff's volunteer status and asked MCAC for help retrieving three dogs that Plaintiff was fostering....