Newbold v. City of Saint Louis, Mo.
| Decision Date | 07 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:18CV1572 HEA |
| Parties | DILLAN NEWBOLD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants, |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 111]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, which has been fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is denied in part and granted in part.
Facts and Background[1]
This and several other cases filed in this District share a general set of facts regarding the actions of St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”) officers during peaceful protests following the September 15, 2017 verdict in State of Missouri v. Stockley. See Ortega v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:18 CV 1576 DDN, 2021 WL 3286703 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2021); Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 4:18-CV-1677 CAS, 2019 WL 1695982 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2019); Laney v. City of St. Louis Mo., No. 4:18-CV-1575 CDP, 2019 WL 2423308, (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2019); Laird v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No 4:18-CV-1567 AGF, 2019 WL 2647273 (E.D. Mo. June 27, 2019); Alston v. City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 4:18-CV-1569 AGF, 2019 WL 2869896 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2019); Thomas v City of St. Louis, Mo., No. 4:18-CV-1566 JAR, 2019 WL 3037200 (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2019).
Those facts, as well as the allegations specific to Plaintiff Dillan Newbold, are as follows:
In 2018, Plaintiff commenced this action after the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (“SLMPD”) arrested him and others on September 17, 2017. The Third Amended Complaint alleges various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts I, II, III, IV, XII, and XIII) and under Missouri state law (Counts V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XIV). Plaintiff has previously voluntarily dismissed Counts XIX and X.
Plaintiff asserts the remaining claims: Count I: Unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against the defendant officers;[2] Count II: Violations of free speech press, association, and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the defendant officers; Count III: Conspiracy to violate civil rights against the defendant officers and defendant Lt. Col. Lawrence O'Toole; Count IV: Failure to train, discipline, and supervise, and an unconstitutional custom of unconstitutional seizures and using excessive force against defendant City of St. Louis; Count V: Assault against the defendant officers; Count VI: False arrest against the defendant officers; Count VII: Abuse of process against the defendant officers and defendant Lt. Col. Lawrence O'Toole; Count VIII: Malicious prosecution against the defendant officers and defendant O'Toole; Count XI: Vicarious liability under the City of St. Louis Charter against defendants O'Toole and Charlene Deeken, Director of Public Safety for the City of St. Louis; Count XII: Excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against the defendant officers; Count XIII: Failure to intervene in the use of excessive force against the defendant officers and defendant O'Toole; and Count XIV: Battery against defendant officers.
Defendants seek to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for several reasons including the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The individual defendants also assert they are entitled to qualified immunity on the counts asserting violations of § 1983 and to official immunity for the state law claims. For purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, the Court must accept as true the facts as alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. Great Rivers Habitat All. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 615 F.3d 958, 988 (8th Cir. 2010).
On September 15, 2017, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Timothy Wilson, issued its findings and verdict in State of Missouri v. Stockley acquitting former SLMPD officer Jason Stockley of first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. The verdict prompted some members of the St. Louis community to engage in protests in St. Louis and the surrounding communities. The protests concerned not only the verdict but broader issues, including racism and the use of force by police officers. Although most of the protests were nonviolent, SLMPD officers “amassed at several protests wearing military-like tactical dress, helmets, batons, and full-body riot shields” and carrying chemical agents.[3]
The specific allegations regarding Plaintiff in this case are: Plaintiff Dillan Newbold (“Newbold”) is a medical student at Washington University. He has lived in St. Louis since 2014 and has participated in several socio-political protests. On September 17, 2017, Newbold went to downtown St. Louis with friends to protest the acquittal of Jason Stockley. About 100 people were scattered around the area of Washington Avenue and Tucked Boulevard, though no large groups were formed. Newbold walked around the block, ending up a block south of Washington and Tucker. There, he saw police officers on bicycles herding pedestrians north toward Washington and Tucker and heard screaming from an alley. He ran to the alley and saw a line of police officers in riot gear marching down the alley. At no point did Newbold hear any police warnings or orders to disperse.
Newbold attempted to return to his car at Washington and Tucker, where a crowd was beginning to form. Police were blocking all points of egress from the intersection of Washington and Tucker, with a line of bicycle officers to the east and full lines of riot police beating batons on the other three sides. The police marched inward, pushing people into the northeast corner of the intersection. Newbold asked officers “How can we leave?” The only response he received were shouts of “Move back.”
Newbold, fearing the SLMPD would use chemical agents on the protestors, put on a bandana and goggles. As armored police approached the crowd, protestors began putting their arms up and sitting down. Newbold, responding to an officer's order to “get down, ” sat down on the ground and began recording video on his phone. Officer Busso told Newbold to “Put your damn phone away and threatened to spray him with pepper spray if he did not stop filming the police. Newbold stopped filming and moved into a fetal position.
Lieutenant Kiphart, without warning, doused Newbold and others with pepper spray from a fogger from a distance of no more than five feet. Officer Coats and Detective Burle reached down and pulled off Newbold's bandana and goggles, grabbed his waistband and dragged him about five feet into the street, scraping Newbold's hip and knee. One of these officers sprayed Newbold in the face with pepper spray. Officer Busso was present at this spot with Coats and Burle, as were at least two other unidentified officers. Newbold's hands were tightly zip tied behind his back by one of these officers, so he could not wipe his face. Newbold shouted that he could not breathe. An officer shouted, Another officer allegedly stood over Newbold and mocked him, saying
Two unidentified officers picked Newbold up by the wrists, causing intense pain in his wrists and shoulder joints from the zip ties. Officer Ruffin took custody of Newbold and walked him toward the transport vehicles. He was still blinded by the pepper spray. He asked Ruffin to loosen his zip ties and yelled from pain. Ruffin ignored his request. He asked at least six police officers at the scene and at the Justice Center to loosen the zip ties. He said he was concerned about nerve damage. His requests were ignored. Officers placed Newbold in the back of a truck with about eighteen other arrestees. On the ride to the Justice Center, the van driver slammed on the brakes, causing the arrestees to slam into one another. After about 15 minutes, Newbold lost all sensation in his hands. When Newbold was put in a holding cell, his hands were purple. He tried to get officers' attention to loosen the zip ties. Ten minutes later, an officer removed the zip ties. This was about an hour and fifteen minutes after Newbold's arrest.
Newbold was detained for over fifteen hours. Throughout the night and the next morning, he was repeatedly moved from one cell to another. Only the first cell he was in had a working phone, and most of the night he was not allowed to use a phone. Most cells contained around 30 other arrestees. The pepper spray sprayed on Newbold's face, neck and hands continued to cause him pain throughout the night. He was concerned about residual pepper spray caught below his contact lenses but did not remove them because his hands were still coated in dry mace. Newbold experienced continuing pain and hypersensitivity to heat for the next two days. Some segments of his right hand had no sensation.
Immediately after his release, Newbold went to the student health office. There, he was directed to the emergency room. He was diagnosed with neuralgia (nerve pain) and neuropraxia (loss of sensation due to nerve injury.) He experienced hypersensitivity to heat and pain, as well as no sensation in some parts of his right hand for two days after his arrest. Newbold did not recover full sensation in his right hand for nearly two months.
The Third Amended Complaint also contains allegations that none of the individuals inside the crowd of protestors (the “kettle”) on September 17, 2017 were acting violently and aggressively, yet they were kicked, beaten dragged, and sprayed with chemical agents. Further, during and after the arrests of protestors, SLMPD officers were observed high...
To continue reading
Request your trial