Moore v. City of Memphis

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2:14-cv-02089-STA-cgc,2:14-cv-02089-STA-cgc
• Citation: 175 F.Supp.3d 915
• Parties: Ronald Moore, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Memphis, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

175 F.Supp.3d 915

Ronald Moore, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
City of Memphis, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02089-STA-cgc

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

Signed March 30, 2016

175 F.Supp.3d 916

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

S. THOMAS ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendant City of Memphis's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 108) and Defendant Phillip Penny's Motion for Summary Judgment on claims against him in his individual and official capacities (ECF No. 110), both filed on April 29, 2015. Plaintiffs Ronald Moore, as son, next of kin, and Administrator Ad Litem/Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald Moore, Sr., Deceased; Gina Waldrop, as daughter and next of kin of Donald Moore, Sr., Deceased; and Donald Moore, Jr., son and next of kin of Donald Moore, Sr., Deceased, have responded in opposition (ECF Nos. 125, 127) to Defendants' Motions, and Defendants have filed separate reply briefs (ECF Nos. 132, 135).

175 F.Supp.3d 917

For the reasons set forth below, both Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED .

BACKGROUND

In their Complaint (ECF No. 1–2), Plaintiffs allege that Defendant City of Memphis and Defendant Phillip Penny are liable for the deprivation of the constitutional rights of their father, Donald Moore, Sr., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants now seek judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' claims for relief.

Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a), Defendants have prepared separate statements of facts “to assist the Court in ascertaining whether there are any material facts in dispute.”¹ A fact is material if the fact “might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing substantive law.”² A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”³ For purposes of summary judgment, a party asserting that a material fact is not genuinely in dispute must cite to particular parts of the materials in the record and show that the materials fail to establish a genuine dispute or that the adverse party has failed to produce admissible evidence to support a fact.⁴ As the non-moving party, Plaintiffs must respond to Defendants' statements of fact “by either (1) agreeing that the fact is undisputed; (2) agreeing that the fact is undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment only; or (3) demonstrating that the fact is disputed.”⁵ Additionally, Plaintiffs may “object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”⁶

Where Plaintiffs assert that a genuine dispute of material fact exists, Plaintiffs must support their contention with a “specific citation to the record.”⁷ If Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that a fact is disputed or simply fail to address Defendants' statement of fact properly, the Court will “consider the fact undisputed for purposes” of ruling on the Motion.⁸ Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court “need consider only the cited materials” but has discretion to “consider other materials in the record.”⁹

I. Factual Background

The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to the following material facts, unless otherwise noted.¹⁰ On January 11,

175 F.Supp.3d 918

2013, the decedent, Donald Moore, Sr., was a 67 year-old single male, living alone at 10038 Cameron Ridge Road, Cordova, Tennessee. (Def. City of Memphis's Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 1.) Phillip Penny was a Memphis Police Department (“MPD”) officer assigned to the TACT squad (“TACT”). (Id. ) TACT, which is an acronym for “Tactical Apprehension and Containment Team,” is the MPD's name for its special weapons and tactics team, popularly known as SWAT. (Id. ¶ 3.) According to its Standard Operating Procedure Manual, TACT's primary objective is to “resolve high-risk situations utilizing a minimum force, resulting in a minimum of personal injury and property damage.” (Id. ¶ 4.)¹¹ One high-risk situation for which TACT is utilized is the service of search warrants where a likelihood of gunfire or other violence exists. (Id. ¶ 5.)

A. Initial Contact between Moore and Animal Services

Carol Lynch was an Animal Control Officer with Memphis Animal Services (“Animal Services”), a department of the City of Memphis. (Id. ¶ 6.)¹² Lynch's job is to enforce city ordinances regarding the treatment and condition of animals, particularly pets. (Id. ¶ 7.) Lynch responds to and investigates complaint calls and issues citations when necessary to enforce Memphis City Ordinances. (Id. ¶ 8.) Animal Services had received at least one complaint regarding Moore's treatment of his pets and conducted an investigation for animal cruelty in September 2012. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.)¹³ Lynch attempted to follow up

175 F.Supp.3d 919

on the investigation by contacting Moore at his residence in October 2012 but at a time when Moore was not at home. (Id. ¶ 11.) During her follow-up visit, Lynch observed over the backyard fence that the back door to Moore's house was open, and chickens and rabbits were going in and out of the house. (Id. ) She also observed “clutter and trash” and smelled urine. (Id. ) Before leaving Moore's property, Lynch spoke with one of Moore's neighbors who expressed she was very terrified of Moore and commented that Moore had threatened her. (Id. ¶ 12.)¹⁴

Due to her concerns about Moore, Lynch sought out assistance from MPD and returned with officers some time later on October 15, 2012. (Def. Penny's Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 14; Def. City of Memphis' Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 13.)¹⁵ Moore was home and came out of the front door gesturing with his hand behind his back like he had a weapon. (Id. ) Because she was not wearing a protective vest, Lynch moved toward Moore's garage for cover. (Def. Penny's Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 24.) The MPD officers accompanying Lynch ordered Moore to show his hands and asked for identification, but he would not comply. (Id. ¶ 23.) One of the officers who had training as a crisis intervention team (“CIT”) officer tried to talk to Moore and advised Moore that if he did not cooperate, the police would get a warrant. (Id. ¶ 28.) The officer told Moore the police just wanted to talk to him about his animals. (Id. ¶ 29.)

Moore cursed at the officers and then backed into his house and closed his door. (Def. City of Memphis' Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 13.) According to Lynch, Moore “seemed real angry or something.” (Id. ¶ 14.) Thereafter, Lynch feared for her safety because she thought Moore was armed and going to hurt somebody, and so she refused to follow up on her investigation of the animal cruelty complaints without MPD protection. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs add that Lynch described Moore as “scary” and “probably armed” and someone to be approached in daylight hours and not at night. (Pls.' Resp. to Def. City of Memphis's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 16.)

B. Further Encounters with Moore and MPD

On January 8, 2013, Lynch contacted John Morgret, a criminal investigator for the Memphis Humane Society, for assistance. (Def. City of Memphis's Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 17.)¹⁶ Morgret discovered

175 F.Supp.3d 920

one prior complaint to the Memphis Humane Society regarding Moore. (Id. ¶ 18.) Morgret and Lynch went to MPD's Appling Farms precinct and met with Lt. Martin Kula and Officer Scott Edwards, seeking assistance in their investigation of the animal cruelty complaints against Moore. (Id. ¶ 19.) Lt. Kula is a 25–year MPD veteran, and Officer Edwards has been an MPD officer since 2002 and is a trained crisis intervention team officer. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 23.) Officer Edwards had training in de-escalation techniques as well as how to deal with “mental consumers.” (Id. ¶ 23.) A “mental consumer” is MPD's term for a citizen suffering from possible mental illness. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Lynch described her prior encounters with Moore to Lt. Kula, including the episode when Moore had gestured as though he had a gun behind his back, and Moore's generally uncooperative attitude. (Id. ¶ 21.) Based on Lynch's statements, Lt. Kula suspected that Moore might be “unstable.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Lt. Kula assigned Officer Edwards to assist on the case because of his training in assessing whether someone was a mental consumer. (Id. ¶ 25.) Officer Edwards researched Moore's history for any evidence of violence or mental health issues but saw nothing to indicate Moore was a mental consumer. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28.)¹⁷ Lt. Kula sent Officer Edwards and another officer to accompany Lynch and Morgret to Moore's residence on January 8, 2013. (Id. ¶ 29.) When they found that Moore was not at home, Officer Edwards and other officers returned later the same day around 8:00 p.m. and made contact with Moore. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 30.)¹⁸

Officer Edwards talked with Moore through the door and explained to him that Animal Services just wanted to investigate the condition of Moore's animals. (Id. ¶ 31.) Moore refused to open the door or cooperate in any way. (Id. ) Instead, he...