Leffall v. City of Elsberry, Case No. 4:15-CV-398-SPM
| Decision Date | 17 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:15-CV-398-SPM |
| Parties | LEVELT LEFFALL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ELSBERRY, MISSOURI, and BRANDIN RANEY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This case is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant City of Elsberry, Missouri and Defendant Brandin Raney. (Doc. 21). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 3). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
On April 5, 2014, the Elsberry Police Department received a report of a domestic assault and child endangerment committed by Plaintiff Levelt Leffall ("Plaintiff"). Defendant Brandin Raney ("Defendant Raney"), then a law enforcement officer employed by the City of Elsberry ("the City"), was dispatched to find and arrest Plaintiff. Peyton Archer ("Deputy Archer"), then a deputy of the Lincoln County Sherriff's Department, was called as an outside agency assist by the City to assist Defendant Raney with the arrest of Plaintiff. The officers found Plaintiff's vehicle at the address where Plaintiff lived. Defendant Raney went to the back door of the residence and made contact with Plaintiff, and Deputy Archer then walked to the back of the house and joined them. Defendant Raney advised Plaintiff that he was under arrest. The details of what happened next are in dispute. According to the deposition testimony of Deputy Archer, Plaintiff was argumentative and used passive resistance to avoid being handcuffed, the officers pushed him up against the door of his house to secure him, Plaintiff tried to turn sideways or "blade" to avoid being handcuffed, Plaintiff tried to pull his right arm away, the officers took him to the ground and were able to handcuff him. Deputy Archer also testified that Plaintiff used passive resistance and attempted to fall to the ground when the officers were attempting to take him to the police car, such that the officers had to hold him up. (Deposition of Deputy Archer, Doc. 22-2, at pp. 21-28). Plaintiff, on the other hand, has submitted an affidavit contradicting several of those facts. He states that he did not argue with Defendant Raney or Deputy Archer, did not attempt to turn sideways or pull his arm away when he was shoved up against the door of his residence, and walked to the police car without attempting to fall to the ground. (Affidavit of Plaintiff, Doc. 28-1).
After his arrest, Plaintiff was taken to the Lincoln County Jail. The corrections officer there indicated on a check-box form that he did not observe any signs of obvious injuries. (Doc. 22-3, at p. 5). According to Plaintiff's affidavit, Plaintiff requested to be taken to the hospital for treatment while at the jail, and his requests were refused. (Affidavit of Plaintiff, Doc. 28-1). On April 9, 2014, the day Plaintiff was released from jail on bond, he went to the Emergency Department of SSM St. Joseph Hospital West, complaining of left elbow pain and swelling from an incident four days earlier in which "he was handcuffed and officer slammed him to the ground." (Doc. 22-5, at p. 4). An X-ray showed that Plaintiff's elbow was fractured. His arm was placed in a sling, he was prescribed Percocet and other medications, and he was advised to follow up with orthopedics. According to Plaintiff's affidavit, his left elbow was not injured in any way prior to the arrest onApril 5, 2014, and was not harmed by any person or object between the arrest and his visit to the hospital.
On March 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action, asserting that Defendant Raney violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by using excessive force (Count I); that the City violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by delegating policymaking duties to Defendant Raney, by failing to train, supervise, or control Defendant Raney, and through a pattern of transgressions that included Defendant Raney's actions (Count II); that the City was liable for Defendant Raney's actions under a respondeat superior theory (Count III); that Defendant Raney and the City are liable for assault under Missouri state law (Count IV); and that Defendant Raney and the City are liable for battery under Missouri state law (Count V). On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims.
The Court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Avon State Bank v. BancInsure, Inc., 787 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2015). "A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case." Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis of its motion and of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the nonmoving party must then set forth affirmative evidence fromwhich a jury might return a verdict in his or her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57. The nonmoving party "may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 256. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the Court must review the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must give that party the benefit of any inferences that logically can be drawn from those facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Littrell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 459 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2006).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts several counts against Defendant Raney and several counts against the City, and Defendants move for summary judgment on each count. The Court will address each in turn.
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Raney used excessive and unreasonable force in conducting Plaintiff's arrest, thereby violating Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant Raney moves for summary judgment, arguing that the amount of force he used during the arrest was reasonable and that he is entitled to qualified immunity.
"'Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.'" De Boise v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 760 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 495 (8th Cir. 2009)). A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless "(1) the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established as of [the date of the alleged violation], such that a reasonableofficial would have known that his actions were unlawful." Edwards v. Byrd, 750 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, "[i]f there is a genuine dispute concerning predicate facts material to the qualified immunity issue, the defendant is not entitled to summary judgment." White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 813 (8th Cir. 2008).
The Court first considers the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. In assessing whether there has been a violation of the right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, "the test is whether the amount of force used was objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances.'" Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497, 502 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Littrell v. Franklin, 388 F.3d 578, 583 (8th Cir. 2004)). The factors to be considered in assessing reasonableness include "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.'" Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062, 1066 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)). The reasonableness of a particular use of force is determined "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. "[T]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." Id. at 396-97.
The Eighth Circuit has noted that an "actual injury" may be required to prove a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Davis v. White, 794 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 2015). A de minimis injury may support the conclusion that the officer did not use excessive force. See id.; see also Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 906 (8th Cir. 2011).
After review of the record, the Court concludes that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Defendant Raney's use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant Raney shoved Plaintiff up against his house and pushed him to the ground during the course of the arrest, using sufficient force to fracture his elbow, despite the fact that Plaintiff was not arguing with the officers, threatening the...
To continue reading
Request your trial