McCray v. City of Dothan
| Decision Date | 02 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 99-D-55-S.,Civ.A. 99-D-55-S. |
| Citation | 169 F.Supp.2d 1260 |
| Parties | Douglas McCRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DOTHAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Bobbie S. Crook, Bobbie S. Crook, P.C., Dusty L. Harrell, Dusty L. Harrell, PC, Dothan, AL, Laura M. Hitt, Gordon, Siberman, Wiggins & Childs, Ann C. Robertson, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Collier H. Espy, Jr., Espy, Metcalf & Poston, Dothan, AL, Floyd R. Gilliland, Jr., Alex L. Holstsford, Rick A. Howard, Nix Holtsford Gilliland Lyons & Higgins PC, Montgomery, AL, Alan Carpenter Livingston, Lee & McInish, Freddie Lenton White, II, The City of Dothan, Dothan, AL, for Defendants.
DE MENT, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Douglas McCray ("McCray"), initiated a lawsuit against the City of Dothan, Alabama ("the City") and various police officers, including Adrianne Woodruff ("Woodruff"), Jeffrey Howell ("Howell"), Tim Ward ("Ward"), Greg Carpenter ("Carpenter"), David Carmichael ("Carmichael"), and Stacy Robinson ("Robinson")1 arising out of events which occurred during and after an altercation with police in a Dothan restaurant. As amended, the complaint contains thirteen counts.2 Counts One through Seven set forth constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counts One and Two allege Defendants violated McCray's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights by discriminating against him on the basis of race (African-American) and disability. Count Three states a claim for a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. Count Four is a claim which states Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure. Count Five alleges Defendants used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Count Six states a Fifth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Count Seven is a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. Counts Eight and Nine state claims against the City under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act, respectively. In Count Ten, the remaining federal cause of action, McCray alleges that Defendants conspired to deprive him of equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). In Counts Eleven through Thirteen McCray asserts state law claims against police defendants for assault and battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.3
This matter is before the court on the City's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and the police defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment ("Motions"), both filed May 17, 2001.4 McCray has filed an appropriate response. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the court concludes that Defendants' Motions are due to be granted in part and denied in part.
The court exercises subject matter over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). The Parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue.
On July 24, 1997, McCray, an African-American male, went with his children, Ariel and Douglas, ages four and three, to a Quincy's restaurant in Dothan.6 At the restaurant, he parked his green Hyundai in the space adjacent to a white Corvette.7 Ariel exited the car from the passenger side and, in so doing, damaged the white car in the next space.8 Because McCray is deaf, he did not hear any impact when she opened the door.9 Wayne Hart, the White owner of the Corvette, claims he observed the damage which Ariel caused to his car from inside the restaurant.
After McCray and the children entered the restaurant, Hart approached them.10 When Hart attempted to initiate a conversation with McCray about the damage to his car, McCray gestured that he was deaf.11 McCray also instructed Ariel to communicate to Hart that he was deaf, and she complied.12 After further attempts to verbally communicate with McCray failed, Hart went to speak with a server and ultimately, a manager who called the police.13
Police defendant Woodruff was dispatched to what she described as "a private property traffic incident" at a Quincy's restaurant in Dothan, Alabama.14 When she arrived, Hart told Woodruff that while he was inside Quincy's he saw a small green car driven by McCray pull into the parking space next to his car. As a child exited the passenger side of the green car, Hart claimed she had flung the door open and damaged his car.15 Hart told Woodruff that when he approached McCray to speak with him about the damage, McCray appeared uncooperative.16 Although Hart also told her McCray was deaf, he indicated that if she faced McCray when talking to him, he could understand what she said.17
Woodruff entered the restaurant in search of McCray to obtain his name and address so that Hart could contact him about the damage. She admits that she then had no reason to think that McCray had committed any crime.18 She further concedes that there was no indication that McCray himself had caused any property damage.19
By that time, McCray and his children were seated in a booth and eating dinner.20 When Woodruff approached McCray and introduced herself, he pointed to his ears to indicate that he was deaf.21 He further indicated he could not read lips.22 Woodruff then attempted to communicate with McCray by writing questions on a piece of paper. McCray is pre-lingually deaf which means he lost his hearing before he learned to speak.23 Thus, he communicates through American Sign Language.24 Because English is a second language for him, some concepts in it are unfamiliar to him and it is difficult for him to communicate using written notes.25
In her first written question, Woodruff asked McCray if he owned the green Hyundai parked outside the restaurant.26 McCray nodded to indicate an affirmative response.27 McCray indicated that he did not understand a second question which asked who was driving the car.28 Woodruff then wrote another message to advise McCray of Hart's claim about damage to his car.29 Because he did not fully understand what Woodruff was asking him,30 McCray then made a written request for an interpreter (misspelling it as "inderprter").31 Woodruff became angry and left the restaurant.32 McCray asked a server to call an interpreter and she called Kim Stanford, McCray's wife, who was able to interpret for him.33
When Woodruff returned, she gave McCray a written note which asked him to produce his identification.34 After McCray indicated he did not understand the word "identification," Woodruff clarified that she wanted his driver's license.35 McCray shook his head to indicate yes, and put his hands up to indicate that Woodruff should wait.36 At that point, Woodruff contends that one of McCray's children told her that McCray could talk. When Woodruff asked the child why McCray would not talk to her, the child replied: "I don't know but he can talk." McCray denies that Ariel attempted to communicate with Woodruff.
Following that exchange, McCray wrote on a piece of paper: 37 When Woodruff inquired how soon the interpreter would arrive, she said McCray looked at her as if he did not know.38 Woodruff spoke to McCray in an angry tone and again left the restaurant.39
Woodruff testified that she attempted to question McCray so that she could complete a "property damage report."40 However, for reports on noncriminal private property damage, there is no requirement that anyone participate in the completion of the report, other than the person who contacted the police.41 Woodruff did not ask McCray to fill in information on a report.42 Although Woodruff states that she also wanted to assist Hart by getting McCray's name and address, she concedes she never asked McCray for that information.43
Woodruff claims that she when realized there would be a problem in gaining McCray's cooperation in those endeavors, she went outside to call her supervisor.44 Woodruff told her supervisor, Tim Ward, that she encountered resistance from McCray in gathering information for a report on property damage to Hart's car.45 She testified that she also told Ward that McCray had an interpreter on the way and asked if she should get an interpreter.46 Ward denies she asked him if an interpreter should be obtained for McCray.47 Ward testified that he was dispatched because he was told Woodruff needed a supervisor on the scene.48
Woodruff also advised the police dispatch operator to send a backup police officer "[b]ecause the situation was unusual and [she] wanted to make sure that nobody got hurt."49 She admits, however, that when she asked for backup, McCray had not done anything to indicate he was violent.50 Woodruff further testified that she had reason to suspect McCray might possibly be involved in criminal activity because he refused to answer her questions.51
Defendant Howell was dispatched to assist Woodruff with a "disorderly person."52 However, Howell admitted that when he arrived, McCray was not behaving in a disorderly fashion.53 Howell also conceded that Woodruff told him McCray was deaf and that she felt that he was being uncooperative, in part, because he had discontinued written communication with her.54 Woodruff also told him that McCray had refused to provide his license or any other basic information.55
After Ward and Howell arrived on the scene, according to Ward, Woodruff explained Hart's allegations and she further described the situation as an incident of property damage,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchanan ex rel. Estate of Buchanan v. Maine, No. CIV.04-26-B-W.
...arrived on the scene); Vincent, 2003 WL 22757940, at *25 (exigent circumstances preclude Title II claim); McCray v. City of Dothan, 169 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1275 (M.D.Ala.2001) (finding it per se reasonable "to disregard a suspect's disability until overriding concerns of public safety are ensur......
-
American Ass'n of People with Disabil. v. Smith
...candidate and question counters, as registered both before the polls open and after the polls close. 14. See McCray v. City of Dothan, 169 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1273 (M.D.Ala.2001); Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir.1991); Allison v. Dept. of Corrections, 94 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir.1996);......
-
Ruffino v. City of Hoover
...the information with the intention of inducing criminal proceedings that otherwise have no merit.” See McCray v. City of Dothan, 169 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1293 (M.D.Ala.2001) (citing Alabama Power Co., 402 So.2d at 964) (emphasis added), aff'd in part and rev'd in part without opinion67 Fed.Appx.......
-
Representative Of The Estate Of William Christi Scozzari v. City Of Clare
...not reasonably accommodate a plaintiff's disability during the course of an investigation or an arrest. See, e.g., McCray v. City of Dothan, 169 F.Supp.2d 1260 (M.D.Ala.2001), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, No. 01-15756-DD, 2003 WL 23518420 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2003) (denying......
-
Out with the new, in with the old: the importance of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to prisoners with disabilities.
...1135-36 (9th Cir. 2001); Center v. City of West Carrollton, 227 F. Supp. 2d 863, 867-70 (S.D. Ohio 2002); McCray v. City of Dothan, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1273 (M.D. Ala. 2001), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 2003 WL 23518420 (11th Cir. 2003); Estate of Alcalde v. Deaton S......
-
False imprisonment/arrest.
...District Court FALSE IMPRISONMENT PROBABLE CAUSE McCray v. City of Dothan, 169 F.Supp.2d 1260 (M.D.Ala. 2001). A deaf African-American plaintiff brought a civil rights action against police officers and a city. The district court declined to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendants......