Lessley v. City of Madison, Ind., Case No. 4:07-cv-0136-DFH-WGH.
| Decision Date | 21 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:07-cv-0136-DFH-WGH. |
| Citation | 654 F.Supp.2d 877 |
| Parties | Kristy L. LESSLEY, Kara J. Rhodehamel and Kayla M. Messer, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF MADISON, INDIANA, Albert G. Huntington, Jim Lee, Donald James Royce, Robert Wolf, Jonathon D. Simpson, Mika Season Jackson, William Watterson, Christopher Strouse, Jennifer Lee Hendrick, James Hendrick, Clifty Fire Company Number 6, and Robert L. Barlow, II, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Joseph A. Colussi, Colussi Law Office, Madison, IN, for Plaintiffs.
Dwight Timothy Born, Terrell Baugh Salmon & Born LLP, Evansville, IN, William Edward Jenner, Jenner Auxier & Pattison LLP, Madison, IN, R. Jeffrey Lowe, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, New Albany, IN, Ian L. Stewart, James S. Stephenson, Stephenson Morow & Semler, Indianapolis, IN, Steven Craig Jackson, Ferguson & Ferguson, Bloomington, IN, for Defendants.
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS
It all began with a broken license plate light. One thing led to another, and the ensuing traffic stop in Madison, Indiana has become the subject of elaborate and expensive litigation that requires this lengthy tour through wide tracts of Fourth Amendment law, federal civil rights remedies, and state tort law.
On January 19, 2007, Madison police officers pulled over plaintiffs Kristy Lessley, Kara Rhodehamel, and Kayla Messer for a broken license plate light. An officer smelled marijuana emanating from the car, and he searched the car. He found either nothing or a trace amount of marijuana. Another officer searched the plaintiffs' pockets. He found nothing. The officers then called a female Madison officer who performed warrantless strip-searches on the three plaintiffs at a local fire station. The female officer found marijuana on Kristy Lessley. Lessley was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, but those charges were dismissed. Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the officers involved in the stop and search, the City of Madison and many of its supervisory officials, and the fire station and two volunteer firefighters. The complaint includes multiple state and federal claims.
Each side has filed four motions for summary judgment. The court addresses first the defendants' motions, which are separated by defendant. The court then addresses the plaintiffs' motions, which are separated by issue. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to amend the complaint and a motion to reopen discovery and summary judgment briefing. As detailed below, each side's motions are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' core search claims under federal law survive, as do some of their state claims. Plaintiffs' municipal liability claim also survives under federal law, but summary judgment is granted for the supervisory defendants on the individual claims against them. Defendants have appealed two discovery orders of Magistrate Judge Hussmann. One appeal is denied and the other is sustained. Finally, at this late stage of the case, plaintiffs will not be permitted to amend the complaint to add an entirely new defendant, the city's liability insurer.
Summary judgment must be granted if the record shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A factual issue is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A factual issue is material if resolving the factual issue might change the suit's outcome under the governing law. Id. The motion should be granted only if no rational fact finder could decide in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 249-50, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmond v. City of Chi.
...they must plausibly allege the supervisors' "knowledge of the specific conduct challenged and acquiescence." Lessley v. City of Madison, 654 F. Supp. 2d 877, 895 (S.D. Ind. 2009) (citing Lanigan v. Vill. of E. Hazel Crest, 110 F.3d 467, 478 (7th Cir. 1997)) (emphasis added); accord Gill, 85......
-
Estate of Williams v. Ind. State Police
...immunity ... does not shield the government from liability for excessive force by police”); see also Lessley v. City of Madison, Ind., 654 F.Supp.2d 877, 913 (S.D.Ind.2009) (“The statutory law enforcement immunity does not bar plaintiffs' claims for assault and battery against the City of M......
-
Barnhouse v. City of Muncie
...law tort claims against the City of Muncie for the acts of its agents, the police officer defendants. See Lessley v. City of Madison , 654 F. Supp. 2d 877, 902 (S.D. Ind. 2009) ("[p]laintiffs cannot sue [police officer] personally for state torts, but they may be able to hold the [defendant......
-
Raffel Sys., LLC v. Man Wah Holdings Ltd.
...in their favor on the same issue, "the court must consider the evidence through two different lenses." Lessley v. City of Madison, Ind. , 654 F. Supp. 2d 877, 890 (S.D. Ind. 2009). Specifically, "[w]hen considering defendants’ motion[ ], the court gives plaintiffs the benefit of conflicts i......