Moore v. Peitzmeier
| Decision Date | 07 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. TDC-18-2151 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER MOORE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL PEITZMEIER, JOSEPH ALVAREZ, YVESDIDIER NKODIA and NATHAN LENHART, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Christopher Moore has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights and state law tort claims arising from his arrest outside his apartment complex by Defendants Officers Michael Peitzmeier, Joseph Alvarez, Yvesdidier Nkodia, and Nathan Lenhart of the Montgomery County Police Department ("MCPD"). Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosures and Exclude Such Testimony at Trial, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Moore's Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed the filings, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Strike will be DENIED, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Moore's Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED.
On the evening of August 20, 2016, Plaintiff Christopher Moore took two Percocet pills. After taking the medication, he was called in to work at a bar. While at work, he learned that his uncle had died. Moore began drinking alcohol, and at this point his memory of the evening and its events ends. His next memory is from a hospital visit some time the next morning.
At 4:38 a.m. on August 21, 2016, the residents of Apartment 21, 3902 Blackburn Lane, Montgomery County, Maryland called 911 and reported that a man was attempting to break into their apartment. The man had struck their door with such force that it was stuck partially open and would not close properly. MCPD Officers Michael Peitzmeier and Nathan Lenhart responded to the call. In the apartment building's stairwell, they discovered Moore locked in a scuffle with two men wearing security guard uniforms. The officers joined the fray in an attempt to get Moore under control, but he did not cooperate. In addition to yelling about his uncle's passing, he was also "struggling with and pulling away from" the group, despite being told to "stop fighting" multiple times. Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts ("JSUF") at 2, ECF No. 55-2. It took all four men to get Moore under control and eventually into handcuffs.
Once Moore was in handcuffs, Officers Peitzmeier and Lenhart investigated the disturbance. They learned that the security guards were not employed by the apartment complex but were instead Moore's co-workers who had taken him home from a bar where he had been causing a disturbance. Upon meeting with the residents of Apartment 21, the officers learned that Moore was apparently so intoxicated that he mistakenly believed Apartment 21 was his own residence and had broken the door trying to get into what he thought was his home. During this investigation, Moore was "yelling, growling, cursing, and jumping up and down," in addition to shouting about his uncle. Id. at 3. The officers eventually determined that Moore actually resided in Apartment 22. They knocked on the door of this unit, and Moore's wife answered.
Moore's wife, one of the security guards named Bang, and the officers discussed what to do with Moore. The officers stated that, in light of Moore's intoxication and his grief at his uncle'spassing, they thought it best to allow Moore to sleep off his intoxication in the apartment rather than to arrest him. Moore's wife expressed some reservation about allowing Moore into the apartment given his intoxicated state, noting that there were young children in the apartment, and suggested that he sleep in the hallway. After the officers warned that Moore would be arrested if they were called back to deal with any further disturbances or property destruction by Moore, and after Bang volunteered to stay with Moore in the apartment to ensure the family's safety, she agreed to allow him to enter. Satisfied that Moore would sleep it off in his apartment, the officers left. The encounter had lasted about 30 minutes.
Just 10 minutes later, however, the residents of Apartment 21 again called 911 and reported that the same man was outside their door, fighting other men in the hallway, and making verbal threats. Officer Peitzmeier, the first officer on the scene, discovered Moore, shirtless and shoeless, sitting on the front steps of the apartment complex with his head down. Moore was intermittently yelling incoherently. Officer Peitzmeier spoke to Moore, but Moore did not respond. Officer Joseph Alvarez was next to arrive, and Officer Peitzmeier told him that it was a "straight up 10-15," meaning that Moore needed to be placed in custody. JSUF at 6; Peitzmeier Body Camera Video ("Body-Cam") at 3:05-3:15, ECF No. 63. Officer Alvarez approached Moore, speaking to him but also receiving no response.
As Officer Alvarez reached down to touch Moore, Moore's head snapped up and he extended his arms toward Officer Alvarez while yelling Peitzmeier Body-Cam at 3:23-3:28. His left hand or arm made contact with Officer Alvarez's upper chest, and though Moore had not fully stood up, the contact caused Officer Alvarez to move back. Officer Alvarez responded by punching at Moore's face one or two times, knocking Moore onto his back againstthe steps. Officer Peitzmeier attempted to restrain Moore and get him into handcuffs, but he did not punch Moore.
As the incident was unfolding, two more officers arrived on the scene. Officer Yvesdidier Nkodia ran forward and helped secure Moore by putting his right knee onto Moore's lower body. Officer Lenhart, who had been on the first call, ran forward and began punching Moore in the face. Lenhart Body-Cam at 1:30-1:50, ECF No. 63. Although Officer Lenhart has testified that he believed that Moore was continuing to resist and fight, Moore was lying on his back, against the steps, with his arms down. It appears from body camera video footage that Officer Lenhart delivered two blows to Moore's face while Moore's chest and neck were being held in place. This flurry of punches lasted only a few seconds.
The officers then rolled Moore onto his stomach and began attempting to handcuff him as he muttered several times, "Why'd you hit me, dog?" Id. at 1:40-1:55. Moore was bleeding from the head, with some of his blood pooling on the steps. As the officers continued to attempt to get Moore's hands behind his back—a task made more difficult by Moore's awkward position against the stairs—Moore told the officers that they were hurting his neck and assured them, "I'm not fighting you." Id. at 2:00-2:30. When Moore was finally in a position to be handcuffed, Officer Alvarez put his hand on the back of Moore's neck but released his hold once the handcuffing was complete. As a result of the injuries he suffered, Moore was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was treated for "an acute head injury, laceration of the eyebrow, abrasions, and neck strain." JSUF at 9.
Officer Peitzmeier completed an Incident Report and a Statement of Charges. In the Statement, he proposed charges of disorderly conduct, second-degree assault, and resisting arrest. Although Moore was later charged with these three offenses, the case was ultimately terminatedby nolle prosequi. Officer Peitzmeier later testified that he also believed that there was probable cause to arrest Moore for malicious destruction of property as well. Defendants have offered the testimony of MCPD Lieutenant Marc Erme, an expert witness, that there was probable cause to arrest Moore for disorderly conduct, assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, malicious prosecution, and attempted burglary. The expert has also testified that each officer's use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.
On July 16, 2018, Moore filed the present action. As narrowed by voluntary dismissal of certain defendants and claims, and by the Court's ruling on a Motion to Dismiss, Moore is presently alleging claims of unlawful seizure, excessive force, negligence, gross negligence, and battery against Officers Peitzmeier, Alvarez, Nkodia, and Lenhart, and a claim of malicious prosecution against Officer Peitzmeier only.
In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants seek summary judgment on all six remaining counts on the grounds that their arrest of Moore was lawful, that the force they used against Moore was not excessive under the Fourth Amendment and did not constitute battery under Maryland law, that they were neither negligent nor grossly negligent in arresting Moore, and that Officer Peitzmeier's filing of the Statement of Charges against Moore did not constitute malicious prosecution.
In his Opposition to Defendants' Motion, Moore abandons his negligence and gross negligence claims, so the Court will enter summary judgment on those counts. In his Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Moore seeks summary judgment in his favor on the malicious prosecution claim.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In assessing the Motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with all justifiable inferences drawn in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2003). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute of material fact is only "genuine" if...
To continue reading
Request your trial