Little v. Miss. Dep't of Pub. Safety Bureau of Narcotics

• Decision Date: 13 July 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00048-GHD-RP
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER LITTLE PLAINTIFF v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BUREAU OF NARCOTICS; CITY OF FULTON, MISSISSIPPI; CHIEF REGINALD REGGIE JOHNSON in His Official Capacity; AGENT JOEL HILL in His Individual and Official Capacity; and JOHN DOES 1-2 in Their Individual and Official Capacities DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

CHRISTOPHER LITTLE PLAINTIFF
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BUREAU OF NARCOTICS;
CITY OF FULTON, MISSISSIPPI; CHIEF REGINALD REGGIE JOHNSON
in His Official Capacity; AGENT JOEL HILL in His Individual and Official Capacity;
and JOHN DOES 1-2 in Their Individual and Official Capacities DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-cv-00048-GHD-RP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

July 13, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY

Presently before the Court are the following: (1) a motion for summary judgment [46] filed by Defendants the City of Fulton, Chief Reginald Reggie Johnson in his official capacity, and Agent Joel Hill in his individual and official capacity; and (2) a motion to stay [54] filed by Plaintiff Christopher Little. These matters are now ripe for review. Upon due consideration of the motions, responses, replies, corresponding briefing, attachments, and exhibits, and for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment must be granted and the motion to stay must be denied as moot.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiff Christopher Little ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint [1] against Defendants the City of Fulton, Mississippi ("City of Fulton"); Joel Hill ("Defendant Hill"); Chief Reginald "Reggie" Johnson ("Defendant Johnson"); and John Does 1-2 ("Defendant John

Page 2

Does") (collectively, "Defendants").¹ On April 18, 2016, Defendants filed an answer [11] to the complaint.²

Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1) injunction prohibiting future conduct of a similar character, kind, or nature; (2) negligence, gross negligence, and failure to hire, monitor, train, and supervise; (3) intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) civil assault and battery; and (5) "[v]iolation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violation and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Civil Rights Violation," which apparently refers to Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations and a Fourth Amendment excessive force violation.³

The parties engaged in discovery. On March 29, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment [46] to which Plaintiff filed a response and Defendants filed a reply. On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a supplemental response in opposition [57] to the motion for summary judgment [46]. Subsequently, on June 29, 2017, Defendants filed a reply [59] to Plaintiff's supplemental response. On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay [54] to which Defendants filed a response.

Defendant Hill is a narcotics officer at the City of Fulton Police Department.⁴ Defendant Johnson is Chief of Police of the City of Fulton, Mississippi.⁵ On August 27, 2015, Defendant

Page 3

Hill subjected Plaintiff to a traffic stop⁶ that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest for the misdemeanor crimes of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, no tag, seatbelt violation, driving while license suspended, and no proof of insurance.⁷

Plaintiff alleges that on the way to his workplace, Plaintiff drove his vehicle to a friend's automobile body shop to use the telephone.⁸ Plaintiff further alleges that while Plaintiff was exiting his car, Defendant Hill drove into the parking lot.⁹ Plaintiff avers that Defendant Hill asked Plaintiff for his driver's license, and that when Plaintiff attempted to retrieve his driver's license from the inside of his car, "[Defendant] Hill forcefully grabbed [Plaintiff's] waist and pulled him out of the car."¹⁰ Plaintiff further avers that Defendant Hill then "thought he saw [Plaintiff] stuff a white substance down his mouth, so [Defendant] Hill grabbed [Plaintiff's] jaw, trying to pry it open," and "threw [Plaintiff] to the ground and began choking him."¹¹ Plaintiff further alleges that Plaintiff lost consciousness twice.¹² Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Hill searched Plaintiff's car and his person, but found no narcotics or paraphernalia.¹³ Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff was then handcuffed and transported to the Itawamba County Jail.¹⁴

Page 4

Plaintiff further alleges that paramedics from the North Mississippi Medical Center Ambulance Services were called to the jail to evaluate Plaintiff.¹⁵ Plaintiff avers that he "sustained lost wages and missed a work day on the day of the incident"; Plaintiff further avers that "his pre-existing back issues were significantly exacerbated."¹⁶

Defendants' account of the aforestated events somewhat differs from Plaintiff's account. Defendants argue that a confidential informant provided Defendant Hill with a tip that Plaintiff was planning to purchase Oxycodone pills in Alabama in order to sell the pills in the parking lot of the Dixie Gas Station in Fulton, Mississippi.¹⁷ In response to this tip, Defendant Hill parked across the street from the Dixie Gas Station in Fulton to observe the parking lot of the gas station.¹⁸ Defendant Hill observed a small, black vehicle parked at the gas station; two vehicles then drove up to the car, parked beside it briefly, and left.¹⁹ Defendants further maintain that Defendant Hill believed that this activity was consistent with drug activity.²⁰ Defendants argue that Defendant Hill was able to identify Plaintiff based on earlier encounters and Plaintiff's limp while walking.²¹ Defendants further argue that Plaintiff returned to his vehicle and pulled out of the convenience store; Defendant Hill followed and observed that Plaintiff was "driving with an

Page 5

expired tag, was not wearing a seatbelt, and was driving erratically."²² Defendants maintain that Defendant Hill activated his blue lights, but Plaintiff drove on for approximately a half mile.²³ At that point, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff stopped his vehicle at an automobile repair shop, "immediately jumped out of his vehicle[,] and questioned [Defendant] Hill as to why he was pulled over."²⁴ Defendants further maintain that Defendant Hill informed Plaintiff of his reasons for the stop and "requested that the Plaintiff provide him with his driver's license," but that "[i]nstead of complying, the Plaintiff 'dove' back into his vehicle."²⁵ Defendants maintain that while Defendant Hill was "trying to extricate the Plaintiff from the vehicle, [Defendant] Hill witnessed the Plaintiff pushing a small cellophane wrapper containing a white substance into his mouth."²⁶ Defendants further maintain that "[Defendant] Hill grabbed the Plaintiff's jaw in an effort to prevent him from swallowing the substance" and "told the Plaintiff to 'spit it out.' "²⁷ However, Defendants maintain that "Plaintiff did not comply[,] [a] struggle ensued[,] and [Defendant] Hill took the Plaintiff to the ground."²⁸ Defendants further argue that Plaintiff then "swallowed what was in his mouth and relaxed his jaws," and "[Defendant] Hill got up off the ground and told the Plaintiff to remain still."²⁹ Defendants maintain that Defendant Hill then

Page 6

called for assistance, and two officers arrived at the scene.³⁰ Defendants further maintain that video of Plaintiff following the traffic stop demonstrates Plaintiff did not suffer an injury from the encounter with Defendant Hill.³¹ Defendants maintain that Defendant Hill was "[c]oncerned that the Plaintiff had swallowed drugs" and "called for paramedics to come to the jail to examine Plaintiff," but "Plaintiff objected to this, stating that he was fine."³² Defendants maintain that nonetheless "[Defendant] Hill insisted that the paramedics come to the jail," and that once the paramedics arrived and took Plaintiff's vital signs, "[Plaintiff] refused any additional medical treatment."³³

The pertinent events following the detention at Itawamba County Jail are not in dispute. Plaintiff was released on a recognizance bond.³⁴ Plaintiff was criminally charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, no tag, seatbelt violation, driving while license suspended, and no proof of insurance.³⁵ Plaintiff pled nolo contendere to the charges in Fulton Municipal Court, was found guilty, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail suspended pending appeal in the Itawamba County Circuit Court on the charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.³⁶ The Itawamba County Grand Jury subsequently indicted Plaintiff in Cause Number CRCR16-219 for felony

Page 7

destruction of evidence.³⁷ Subsequently, "[Plaintiff] reached a plea deal with prosecutors. He admitted guilt as to the felony destruction of evidence charge. In exchange, the Itawamba Circuit Court withheld acceptance of the plea and placed [Plaintiff] on probation for a year, and the misdemeanor charges were dropped."³⁸ On June 12, 2017, the Circuit Court of Itawamba County dismissed with prejudice the misdemeanor charges against Plaintiff, including charges of disorderly conduct and failure to comply, and also entered an Order of Non-Adjudication on Plaintiff's charge of felony destruction of evidence/tampering with evidence.³⁹

II. Summary Judgment Standard

This Court grants summary judgment "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). The rule "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548.

Page 8

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record it believes demonstrate the absence...