Laird v. City of Saint Louis

• Citation: 564 F.Supp.3d 788
• Decision Date: 29 September 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:18-cv-01567-AGF
• Parties: Lindsey LAIRD and Andre Roberts, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

564 F.Supp.3d 788

Lindsey LAIRD and Andre Roberts, Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-01567-AGF

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed September 29, 2021

Blake Alexander Strode, Maureen Hanlon, Michael-John Voss, Nathaniel Richard Carroll, John McCann Waldron, Archcity Defenders, James R. Wyrsch, Javad M. Khazaeli, Khazaeli and Wyrsch LLC, Samuel Henderson, Henderson Law Firm LLC, St. Louis, MO, Kiara Drake, Pullman, WA, for Plaintiffs Lindsey Laird, Andre Roberts.

Abby J. Duncan, Robert H. Dierker, Adriano Alfonso Martinez, Andrew David Wheaton, Erin K. McGowan, Amy M. Raimondo, Brandon D. Laird, St. Louis City Counselors Office, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants City of Saint Louis, Missouri, Gerald Leyshock, Scott Boyher, Timothy Sachs, Randy Jemerson, Matthew T. Karnowski, Brian Rossomanno.

Abby J. Duncan, Robert H. Dierker, Adriano Alfonso Martinez, Brandon D. Laird, St. Louis City Counselors Office, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants Jeremiah Koerper, Gregory Schaffer, Lawrence O'Toole, Sgt. Daniel Howard, Brandt Flowers, Off. Brett Carlson, Samuel Rachas, Keith Burton, Jason Brandhorst, Glennon Frigerio, Off. Daniel Cora.

Abby J. Duncan, Robert H. Dierker, Adriano Alfonso Martinez, St. Louis City Counselors Office, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant Matthew Karnowski.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs Lindsey Laird and Andre Roberts claim that during peaceful protest activity following the September 15, 2017, verdict in State of Missouri v. Stockley ,¹ St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) officers unlawfully "kettled,"² pepper sprayed, assaulted, and arrested them. Plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several SLMPD officers alleged to be involved in the relevant events, as well as the City of St. Louis. Plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery to identify unnamed Doe defendants, culminating in Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. This is one of several cases arising out of SLMPD officers’ conduct during the Stockley protests.

The matter is now before the Court on the motion (ECF No. 122) of all of the Defendants except the City³ to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

BACKGROUND

Taken as true for the purpose of this motion, the facts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are as follows. Following the announcement of the Stockley verdict on September 15, 2017, public protests began at multiple locations around the City and continued for several days. Although most of the protests were non-violent, SLMPD officers "amassed at several protests wearing military-like tactical dress, helmets, batons, and full-body riot shields and carrying chemicals." Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 118 at ¶¶ 26, 28.

On September 17, 2017, Plaintiffs went to downtown St. Louis to check on friends who had been protesting peacefully throughout that weekend. Shortly after the couple's arrival, police began to block streets and began herding people toward the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. Plaintiffs were never told by police to disperse. But officers wielding bicycles blocked the route that Plaintiffs hoped to use to exit. Plaintiffs approached the officers to explain that they had only been present for a short time, had committed no crimes, and would leave voluntarily. The officers yelled, "Get the [expletive] back!," and Plaintiffs raised their hands and backed away. Id. at ¶ 145. Despite Roberts's compliance and without warning, Defendant Matthew Karnowski sprayed Roberts with pepper spray in the face and torso, using a large cannister of pepper spray known as a fogger. Both Plaintiffs then immediately sat on the ground with their hands in the air. Defendants Brandt Flowers and Brett Carlson zip-cuffed Laird, and Defendants Samuel Rachas, Keith Burton, and Jason Brandhorst zip-cuffed Roberts.

After being pepper sprayed, Roberts was shaking, breathing erratically, drooling, and temporarily passed out. When Laird attempted to assist Roberts, Defendant Daniel Cora dragged her away and an unidentified SLMPD officer kicked Roberts while Roberts was restrained on the ground. Defendants Carlson, Brandhorst, and the unidentified SLMPD officer tightly zip-cuffed Laird again, leaving a large bruise on her arm. A second unidentified officer restrained Laird and led her from the intersection.⁴

Defendant Gregory Schaffer led Roberts from the intersection and, despite Roberts's full compliance, Schaffer threw Roberts against a wall of 314 City Bar with enough force to injure Roberts's shoulder and break the zip ties from his wrists. Defendant Glennon Frigerio then held Roberts by his throat, choking Roberts with enough force to lift Roberts's feet from the ground. Simultaneously, Defendant Schaffer applied new zip cuffs to Roberts's wrists.⁵ Roberts sat against the wall for 30 to 60 minutes before police placed Roberts in a police wagon and Laird in a bus.

During the arrests, unidentified "SLMPD officers" seized Laird's pocketknife and Roberts's "Ray-Ban frames and prescription lenses, his medical kit, his Swiss Army multitool, and his MTech knife," and did not return these items to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 118 at ¶¶ 319-320.

Plaintiffs remained detained for approximately 20 hours in crowded cells⁶ and were never provided with clean water or medical attention. Police never read Laird her rights. Both Plaintiffs were released from jail on September 18, 2017, Roberts at around 5:30 p.m. that day and Laird at around 6:00 p.m. Plaintiffs allege that "[u]pon their release, all of the arrestees were given summonses showing that they had been charged with ‘failure to disperse’ [and] were instructed to appear at St. Louis City Municipal Court on October 18, 2017." Id. ¶ 117. However, on October 13, 2017, the City Counselor's office issued a letter to arrestees stating that it was "still reviewing the evidence" to decide whether to file charges and that the arrestees were "released from any obligation to appear in Municipal Court on October 18, 2017." Id. ¶ 125. There is no indication in the complaint that Plaintiffs were ever formally charged.

Plaintiffs claim that they were not engaged in unlawful activity at any time during their encounter with police. During and after the arrests, SLMPD officers were observed high fiving each other, smoking celebratory cigars, taking "selfies" on their cell phones with arrestees against the arrestees’ will, and chanting "Whose Streets? Our Streets!" Id. ¶ 104. Officers also taunted arrestees, saying, that if they wanted to be comfortable or wanted water, they "shouldn't have committed a crime." Id. ¶ 166.

With respect to the unidentified officers, Plaintiffs allege that they have been unable to identify these officers because officers removed their name tags from their uniforms and wore masks to conceal their faces. Plaintiffs further allege that, in violation of its policies, the City and SLMPD failed to properly document the arrests and the various uses of force against Plaintiffs and other persons arrested that evening. Plaintiffs allege that, but for the actions of the individual officers, the SLMPD, and the City, these officers could have been identified.

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint names the City and several SLMPD officers, and asserts the following claims:

Count 1: Unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against the "Defendant Officers"⁷ ; Count 2: Violations of free speech, press, association, and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the Defendant Officers;

Count 3: Conspiracy to deprive civil rights against the Defendant Officers and Defendant Lt. Col. Lawrence O'Toole⁸ ;

Count 4: Failure to train, discipline, and supervise, and a custom of unconstitutional seizures and using excessive force against the City;

Count 5: Assault in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers;

Count 6: False arrest in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers;

Count 7: Abuse of process in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers and O'Toole;

Count 8: Malicious prosecution in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers and O'Toole;

Count 9: Intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers;

Count 10: Negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers;

Count 11: Vicarious liability under the City Charter against O'Toole and Charlene Deeken, Director of Public Safety for the City;

Count 12: Excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against the Defendant Officers;

Count 13: Failure to intervene in the use of excessive force against the Defendant Officers and O'Toole;

Count 14: Battery in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers; and

Count 15: Conversion in violation of Missouri law against the Defendant Officers.

All Defendants except the City seek to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They also assert qualified immunity under federal law and official immunity under state law.

DISCUSSION

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's claims must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The reviewing court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Torti v. Hoag , 868 F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2017). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 ...