Logan v. City of S. Bend

• Decision Date: 29 September 2021
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-495 DRL-MGG
• Citation: 564 F.Supp.3d 719
• Parties: Eric Jack LOGAN, Estate of, deceased, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SOUTH BEND et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

564 F.Supp.3d 719

Eric Jack LOGAN, Estate of, deceased, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF SOUTH BEND et al., Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-495 DRL-MGG

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

Signed September 29, 2021

Peter J. Agostino, Stephanie L. Nemeth, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC, South Bend, IN, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

Damon R. Leichty, Judge Our country has witnessed sobering cases of law enforcement using deadly force on unarmed citizens. At first blush, the headline here might read similarly—South Bend police sergeant kills Black man—but the circumstances of this summer night cannot be reduced to a mere headline. What is the same is the tragic loss of a human life. What is different is the deadly threat this suspect posed to the sergeant when he reasonably used his sidearm.

Confronted and separated by a few feet in the dead of night, Eric Jack Logan advanced toward Sergeant Ryan O'Neill with a Gerber knife raised over his head, ignoring quick commands to drop it. In a blink of an eye, the knife was thrown, and two bullets were shot. The knife struck the sergeant's arm, and one bullet struck Mr. Logan's abdomen. Sergeant O'Neill made a split-second decision to use deadly force—one that was difficult, but reasonable under the law.

The Estate of Eric Jack Logan brought this action against the City of South Bend and Sergeant O'Neill under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the sergeant violated Mr. Logan's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive force and discriminating against him on the basis of race. The court grants the defense's summary judgment motion. The United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable deadly force, not reasonable actions of law enforcement.

BACKGROUND

Eric Logan, a 53-year-old resident of South Bend, Indiana, was killed during an encounter with law enforcement at the Central High Apartments on June 16, 2019. That night, a 19-year veteran of the South Bend Police Department, Sergeant Ryan O'Neill,¹ responded to a 911 dispatch call about a suspect in dark clothing breaking into vehicles in the parking lot. From there, events unfolded quickly. The only living eyewitness is Sergeant O'Neill. There is no video or audio footage of the incident. The parties present forensic evidence.

When Sergeant O'Neill arrived at the parking lot, he observed a person leaning into the open driver's side door of a Honda [ECF 102-1 at 178]. Sergeant O'Neill parked his squad car and walked toward the Honda [Id. 181]. Standing about a foot from the Honda's back bumper, Sergeant O'Neill used his left hand to point his flashlight at the driver's door and rested his right hand on his holstered firearm [Id. 181, 185]. Sergeant O'Neill asked the person leaning into the Honda, later identified as Eric Jack Logan, if it was his car [Id. 193-94]. Mr. Logan backed out of the car slightly to look up at Sergeant O'Neill and said, "Yeah." [Id. 195]. Sergeant O'Neill observed a purse peeking out of Mr. Logan's sweatshirt pocket and asked why he had a woman's purse [Id. 195-96].

Mr. Logan stood up [Id. 196]. Sergeant O'Neill saw that Mr. Logan was carrying a napkin and a Gerber knife in his right hand, which he raised above his head [Id. 201]. Sergeant O'Neill was 5’8" and weighed 225 pounds [Id. 18]. Mr. Logan was 6’2" and weighed 269 pounds [ECF 102-4 at 2]. Mr. Logan wielded a Gerber knife approximately 8 inches long, including a 3.5-inch blade—a hunting-style knife with a blunted tip and control jimping ridges:

What happened next occurred in a matter of seconds [ECF 102-1 at 207]. Mr. Logan advanced on the sergeant with the knife raised [Id. 204]. Sergeant O'Neill backpedaled, drew his gun, and ordered Mr. Logan repeatedly to put the weapon down: "Drop the knife. Drop the knife. Drop the knife" [Id. 203, 205]. Mr. Logan forged forward, knife still raised, clearing the length of the Honda [Id. 211; ECF 102-6 ¶¶ 9-10]. Mr. Logan didn't say anything. He started making guttural sounds [ECF 102-1 at 198].

Mr. Logan came within about seven and a half feet—a mere three steps away—when Sergeant O'Neill fired two shots from his hip [Id. 207, 211] and Mr. Logan threw his knife at Sergeant O'Neill. Sergeant O'Neill testified that the thrown knife and gunshots occurred "almost one on top of the other" [Id. 211]. The knife hit Sergeant O'Neill’s forearm [Id. 210, 212]. Sergeant O'Neill’s first shot struck the car door. The second shot hit Mr. Logan's abdomen.

Sergeant O'Neill ordered Mr. Logan to get on the ground and put his hands behind his back, and only then Mr. Logan complied [Id. 218]. Sergeant O'Neill alerted dispatch that shots were fired and that he needed an ambulance [Id. 214]. Mr. Logan was taken to the hospital for emergency surgery, but he did not survive [Id. 222].

The autopsy found that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the abdomen [ECF 102-4 at 1]. The single bullet entered Mr. Logan's right upper abdomen 11 inches below the top of the right shoulder and 4.5 inches right of the midline with a "front to back, downward, slightly right to left" direction [Id. 4].

The Gerber knife, which was later identified as being stolen from a car in the Central High Apartments parking lot, was recovered at the scene [ECF 102-5 ¶ 4]. An examination of the knife did not reveal any latent fingerprints [ECF 134-13 at 80-81; ECF 134-14; ECF 134-15].

At the time of this shooting, the South Bend Police Department had a use of force policy that permitted an officer to "use deadly force to protect [himself] or others from what [he] reasonably believes would be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" [ECF 102-8 at 3]. The department prohibited "bias-based policing," including an "inappropriate reliance on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any non-criminal group ... as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement" [ECF 102-9 at 1]. Sergeant O'Neill participated in annual continuing education training [ECF 102-1 at 81].²

STANDARD

Summary judgment is warranted when "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). The non-moving party must present the court with evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely to find in his favor. Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. , 953 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2020). The court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, view all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, Bellaver v. Quanex Corp. , 200 F.3d 485, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2000), and avoid "the temptation to decide which party's version of the facts is more likely true," Payne v. Pauley , 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003) ; see also Joll v. Valparaiso Comty. Schs. , 953 F.3d 923, 924 (7th Cir. 2020).

In performing its review, the court "is not to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and inconsistencies, and decide whom to believe." Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp. , 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). Nor is the court "obliged to research and construct legal arguments for parties." Nelson v. Napolitano , 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011). Instead, the "court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial." Id. The court must grant a summary judgment motion when no such genuine factual issue—a triable issue—exists under the law. Luster v. Ill. Dept. of Corrs. , 652 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

A. The Law Requires Summary Judgment on the Excessive Force Claim.

Excessive force claims, including those involving deadly force, arise under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Torres v. Madrid , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 989, 995, 209 L.Ed.2d 190 (2021) ; Tennessee v. Garner , 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government to safeguard "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The use of deadly force is a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. Garner , 471 U.S. at 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694 ; Siler v. City of Kenosha , 957 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2020).

The Fourth Amendment examines an officer's actions objectively—whether the officer acted in an objectively reasonable manner. Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) ; see also Taylor v. City of Milford , 10 F.4th 800, 806, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24829, 10 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2021). The court considers "the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham , 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Deadly force may be used when an officer has probable cause to believe that an armed suspect "poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others," or "committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm ... if necessary to prevent escape." Garner , 471 U.S. at 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694 ; accord Siler , 957 F.3d at 759 ; Sanzone v. Gray , 884 F.3d 736, 740 (7th Cir. 2018).

In seeking to understand what a reasonable officer would have done, the law assesses the totality of the circumstances confronting the officer, including what he knew at the time. See Cnty. of Los Angeles v. Mendez , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1539, 1546-47, 198 L.Ed.2d 52 (2017) ; Burton v. City of Zion , 901 F.3d 772, 780 (7th Cir. 2018). The law places a reasonable officer in the exact scenario that the officer actually faced. The court must consider "the...