Martin v. City of Okla. City

• Decision Date: 14 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. CIV-13-1064-D
• Citation: 180 F.Supp.3d 978
• Parties: Antjuan L. Martin, Plaintiff, v. City of Oklahoma City, et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

180 F.Supp.3d 978

Antjuan L. Martin, Plaintiff,

v.City of Oklahoma City, et al., Defendant.

Case No. CIV-13-1064-D

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

Signed April 14, 2016

Nathan H. Harper, Harper Law Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff.

Jennifer M. Warren, Richard C. Smith, Municipal Counselor's Office, Stacey Haws Felkner, Susan A. Knight, Fenton Fenton Smith Reneau & Moon, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants.

ORDER

TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant City of Oklahoma City [Doc. No. 56], Defendants Bill Vetter, Ryan Sorrels, Russell Mock, and Jacob McClain [Doc. No. 59]; and Plaintiff Antjuan Martin [Doc. No. 61], pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

.¹ Defendants seek a judgment as a matter of law in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding Plaintiff's allegedly unlawful arrest.² Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that an ordinance he was charged with violating, Section 30-68(a) of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code, is unconstitutional. The motions are fully briefed and at issue.

Factual Background

Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested for obstructing Oklahoma City police officers who were attempting to arrest an intoxicated man outside of a nightclub where Plaintiff was working as a private security guard. Plaintiff brings § 1983

claims against the individual police officers involved in the incident and the City of Oklahoma City (“City”). Specifically, Plaintiff claims Defendants Ryan Sorrels, Russell Mock, Jacob McClain, and Bill Vetter arrested and imprisoned him without probable cause and by a use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, arrested him in retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment, and conspired to violate his right to due process after he lodged a formal citizen's complaint against them “by rewriting their official reports in order to manufacture probable cause for his arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution.” See Compl. [Doc. No. 1], ¶ 48. He also claims the defendants who testified in his criminal trial caused his retaliatory prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by giving false testimony “to increase the likelihood of a conviction.” Id. ¶ 45.

Plaintiff alleges the City is liable for these violations of his constitutional rights because it adopted “invalid and unconstitutional policies, specifically Ordinances 30-58 and 30-68.” Id. ¶ 35. Plaintiff also asserts a declaratory judgment claim that “Ordinance 30-68 is unconstitutionally broad and vague on its face, and as applied to Plaintiff, because it criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech” and “accords police officers unconstitutional and unfettered discretion in their enforcement” and because “persons of ordinary intelligence cannot reasonably understand what types of conduct [are] prohibited.” Id. ¶¶ 50-52. Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that “Ordinances 30-58 and 30-68 conflict with the Obstruction Statute,” Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 540

, and are “invalid by preemption.” Id. ¶ 55 & Prayer, ¶ H.

The Parties' Motions

Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims. The individual defendants (collectively, the “Officers”) contend, for reasons discussed infra , that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims of false arrest or imprisonment, retaliatory arrest, retaliatory prosecution, and conspiracy, and that his excessive force claim lacks merit. The City contends Section 30-68 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code is constitutional, Sections 30-58 and 30-68 are not preempted by state law, and no municipal policy caused any constitutional violation that occurred. Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motions and, by his motion, contends he is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Section 30-68 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague on its face, and is unconstitutional as applied to him because the only possible basis for his arrest under the statute was his speech and the Officers were permitted to determine that his speech justified an arrest.

Standard of Decision

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

. A material fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. All facts and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. If a party who would bear the burden of proof at trial lacks sufficient evidence on an essential element of a claim, then all other factual issues concerning the claim become immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a dispute of material fact warranting summary judgment. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548

. If a movant carries this burden, the nonmovant must then go beyond the pleadings and “set forth specific facts” that would be admissible in evidence and that show a genuine issue for trial. See

Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Celotex , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ; Adler v. Wal

–

Mart Stores, Inc. , 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir.1998). “To accomplish this, the facts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein.” Adler , 144 F.3d at 671 ; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). “The court need consider only the cited materials, but may consider other materials in the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) ; see also

Adler , 144 F.3d at 672. The inquiry is whether the facts and evidence identified by the parties present “a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505

.

Undisputed Facts³

In the early morning hours of October 8, 2011, Sergeants Sorrels, Mock and McClain and Lieutenant Vetter were working as part of an undercover unit of Oklahoma City police officers investigating car burglaries in the area of Memorial Road between Pennsylvania Avenue and Portland Avenue. Sgt. Sorrels' truck was parked in the parking lot of the Casablanca nightclub, and other members of the unit, including both defendant and non-defendant officers, were nearby. Plaintiff was working as a security guard at the Casablanca club for his own security company; he had contracted with other security guards to assist him, including Renaldo Lemons, Chris Ross, Lejon Hines, and Tanner Jacobs. All security guards other than Plaintiff wore shirts that identified them as security personnel.

Two couples who were attending a party at the Casablanca club (including Plaintiff's sister) left the club near closing time. One man in the group, Darren McDaniel, had been drinking alcohol, was talking very loudly, and appeared to be intoxicated. Mr. McDaniel approached Sgt. Sorrels and asked him to take a picture of the group. Sgt. Sorrels refused; Mr. McDaniel became angry and belligerent; and Sgt. Sorrels decided to arrest him for disorderly conduct and public intoxication. Mr. McDaniel did not submit willingly, and Sgt. Sorrels radioed for assistance. Sgts. Mock and McClain were located at an adjoining property and soon arrived. Each of the undercover officers wore a police badge on a chain around his neck. Although Plaintiff denies the badges were visible to him or displayed at all times, the badges can be seen in photographs taken at the scene. There was conflicting testimony by other witnesses as to whether the police officers' badges were visible during their efforts to subdue Mr. McDaniel. According to Plaintiff's deposition testimony, however, the undercover officers were carrying equipment typical of law enforcement officers, such as firearms and radios, and he assumed “they were some sort of enforcement entity.” See Martin Dep. 95:2-5.

The officers attempted for several minutes to restrain Mr. McDaniel and take him into custody. A video recording made by a bystander with a cell phone does not show the entire incident, but captures an almost two-minute segment.⁴ It depicts three white men (the officers) holding the arms of a black man (Mr. McDaniel), pinning him to the ground, and attempting to handcuff him. A group of approximately 15 to 20 people, including Plaintiff and other security guards, gathered to watch the scuffle between Mr. McDaniel and the officers. Plaintiff approached the officers and attempted to question them about what was happening. None of them answered Plaintiff's questions, but instead, at least two of them directed Plaintiff repeatedly to “get back” or “back up,” and at one point Plaintiff was told emphatically, “Back up or you're going to jail!” See Def. City's Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 2 [Doc. No. 58]; Def. Officers' Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 8 [Doc. No. 62]. Sgt. Sorrels has testified that he felt threatened by the size of the crowd and the intensity of the situation, and Sgts. Sorrels, Mock and McClain have all testified that their attention to Mr. McDaniel was interrupted by Plaintiff's conduct. Lt. Vetter, also in plain clothes, arrived sometime during the altercation but he did not participate. Plaintiff has testified that Lt. Vetter's police badge was visible, and he verbally identified himself to Plaintiff as a police officer. Lt. Vetter informed Plaintiff that he would be arrested when uniformed officers arrived.

Uniformed police officers were dispatched to the scene in response to radio calls for assistance. When they arrived to take custody of Mr. McDaniel, they also arrested Plaintiff. He was cited for the...