McWilliams v. Dinapoli
| Decision Date | 20 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIV-19-212-SPS |
| Parties | GREG MCWILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DINAPOLI, in his individual, capacity, and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
This case arises out of an encounter between Greg McWilliams and deputies from the Bryan County Sheriff's Office. The Plaintiff sued Deputy Michael DiNapoli, as well as the Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County (“Board). The Plaintiff has alleged a claim of excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant DiNapoli, as well as a state law negligence claim as to the Board. Each of the Defendants filed a summary judgment motion, with Defendant DiNapoli asserting qualified immunity and the Board asserting that they are exempt from liability. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that both Defendant Michael DiNapoli's Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief [Docket No. 48], and Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support [Docket No. 44] should be denied.
On March 1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this case in Oklahoma state court in Bryan County, No. 19-CJ-33, and the Board removed the case to this Court on July 4, 2019. See Docket Nos. 1-2. Plaintiff alleged two causes of action in his Petition. The first cause of action is raised as to Defendant DiNapoli, alleging unconstitutional use of excessive and unreasonable force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The second cause of action is raised as to the Board, alleging an Oklahoma state law claim of negligence. Both Defendants moved for summary judgment on September 14, 2020. See Docket Nos 44, 48.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record 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). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The moving party must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), with the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). However, “a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
The undisputed facts of this case reflect that on May 26, 2018, Mr. Jay Raborn visited the Plaintiff's house and invited the Plaintiff to ride in his golf cart to Newberry Creek Marina, and the Plaintiff accepted his invitation. See Docket No. 44, p. 7, ¶ 1. The Plaintiff knew that the marina was owned by the Army Corps of Engineers and that it was leased to Mr. Jerry Current at that time. Id., ¶ 2. When the Plaintiff and Mr. Raborn arrived at the marina area, Mr. Current saw them and told them to leave because they were not supposed to be there with the golf cart. Id., p. 8, ¶ 3. The men refused, and Mr. Current called the Bryan County Sheriff's Office (“BCSO”). Id. Defendant DiNapoli, a Deputy with the BCSO, responded to the call along with Deputy Trainee Justin Vawter. Id., ¶ 4.
Upon arrival, Defendant DiNapoli went inside the store located at the marina to talk with Mr. Current, then went back outside to speak with Mr. Raborn and the Plaintiff, purportedly getting both sides of the story. Defendant DiNapoli then returned to the store to speak with Mr. Current as to his authority around the marina. Mr. Current apparently showed Defendant DiNapoli a lease agreement, [1] which led Defendant DiNapoli to believe that Mr. Current had the authority to ask the Plaintiff and Mr. Raborn to leave. Defendant DiNapoli then went outside again to speak with them. Id., p. 8, ¶ 5; Docket No. 48, ¶ 7-8. Deputy Trainee Vawter remained with the Plaintiff and Mr. Raborn throughout. Upon Defendant DiNapoli returning outside to speak with Mr. Raborn and the Plaintiff, Mr. Raborn backed out his golf cart from where he had been parked. The events following Defendant DiNapoli's second exit from the marina store were captured on video from a camera that appears to be affixed near the roof of the marina store, and which was submitted as an exhibit by multiple parties. See Docket Nos. 44, Ex 4 & 48, Ex. 9.
The video begins with Defendant DiNapoli and Deputy Trainee Vawter standing on the passenger side of Mr. Raborn's golf cart while it is parked in what appears to be a parking area in between two trees, and the men appear to speak to each other on the video for over a minute and a half. At approximately the 1:40 mark, the golf cart begins to move, and Mr. Raborn backs the golf cart out from the parking space. At that time, the Plaintiff was in the passenger seat of the golf cart, holding a cigarette in his right hand as he gripped the top of the golf cart. As the golf cart was in reverse with both the Plaintiff and Mr. Raborn in it, the video shows Defendant DiNapoli stepping toward the passenger side of the golf cart with his palm upraised, reaching toward it. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 1:52-1:54. The parties differ on whether he “removed” or “knocked” the cigarette out of the Plaintiff's hand, but Defendant DiNapoli agrees that he “grabbed” it because he testified that he did not know why “[he] grabbed that.” See Docket No. 48, Ex. 8, p. 11; Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 1:55-1:57.
Upon grabbing the cigarette, Defendant DiNapoli can then be seen on video moving to the rear of the golf cart and all the way around almost to Mr. Raborn on the driver's side, then back toward the rear of the golf cart. At the same time, the Plaintiff exited the golf cart, yelling and moving toward Defendant DiNapoli and the rear of the golf cart where they met each other. As they are speaking, the Plaintiff can be seen placing his right hand on his right hip then speaking with both hands. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 2:03-2:05. After the Plaintiff exited the golf cart, Mr. Raborn stopped the golf cart and also got out, likewise moving to the rear of the golf cart to stand near (but not right next to) the Plaintiff and Defendant DiNapoli. At 2:22, the Plaintiff can be seen taking a step closer to Defendant DiNapoli, with both arms behind his back. Defendant DiNapoli took a step back and the Plaintiff followed, raising his right arm out and away from both of them. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 2:26. The Plaintiff came to stand less than an arms' length distance from Defendant DiNapoli, and Defendant DiNapoli told the Plaintiff to either “get back” or that he was “in my face.” The Plaintiff testified that he was “pretty close, ” and Deputy Vawter testified that they were “practically face-to-face.”[2] The Plaintiff admits to yelling at Defendant DiNapoli and agrees that he did not back away during the conversation. At 2:38, Defendant DiNapoli then put his chin down, causing the brim of his hat to hit the Plaintiff's nose. Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 2:38.
Following Defendant DiNapoli hitting the Plaintiff with his hat, the parties disagree about whether the Plaintiff “applied force” to Defendant DiNapoli's chest. Defendant DiNapoli stated in a June 12, 2018 interview with the OSBI that the Plaintiff knocked his hat sideways then struck him in the chest. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 11, p. 11. At that same interview, though, he also claimed loose cigarettes were rolling off the top of the golf cart and he moved to grab them before they fell. Id. At his deposition, however, Defendant DiNapoli admitted to grabbing the cigarette out of the Plaintiff's hand (rather than attempting to catch loose cigarettes), and the video similarly supports that interpretation of events. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 8, p. 10-11; Ex. 9, 1:54-1:56. This leaves doubts as to Defendant DiNapoli's veracity when he claims to have been hit by the Plaintiff. However, Deputy Trainee Vawter told the OSBI on June 8, 2018 both that Defendant DiNapoli did grab the cigarette out of the Plaintiff's hand and that Defendant DiNapoli hit the Plaintiff with his hat, but also that the Plaintiff then pushed Defendant DiNapoli away after the hat check. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 12, p. 2. The Plaintiff denies pushing or hitting Defendant DiNapoli in the chest. It is unclear from the video whether the Plaintiff made any contact with, or “applied force, ” to Defendant DiNapoli's chest, although it is clear that Defendant DiNapoli continued advancing toward the Plaintiff from the moment he hit the Plaintiff with his hat until the Plaintiff was subdued on the ground. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 2:38-2:46.
After Defendant DiNapoli caused his hat to hit the Plaintiff, it is undisputed that within a second or two he began punching the Plaintiff with closed fists and took hold of him to take him to the ground. Defendant DiNapoli then used a choke hold to restrain the Plaintiff, checked him for weapons, then handcuffed him. See Docket No. 48, Ex 9, 2:38-3:36. During this time, Mr. Raborn stayed toward the rear of the golf cart and did not move to get involved. Additionally, Deputy Trainee Vawter stayed out of the altercation. Once he handcuffed the Plaintiff, Defendant DiNapoli stood him up and performed a pat-down search, then led him to be placed in a patrol vehicle. See Docket No. 48, Ex. 9, 4:05-4:48. The Plaintiff was taken to a hospital to have his injuries checked and was diagnosed with facial abrasions and abrasions to...
To continue reading
Request your trial