Outlaw v. City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 06 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:07-cv-01769 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | TYLON C. OUTLAW, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HARTFORD, DETECTIVE TROY GORDON, OFFICER MICHAEL ALLEN, Defendants. |
(Docs. 75, 76 & 77)
Plaintiff sues the City of Hartford and two of its police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to excessive force during arrest. He alleges that the officers, in their individual capacities, violated his Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also claims that the City failed to supervise the officers properly and that its police department engaged in a pattern of misconduct against arrestees. Additionally, he asserts against all defendants state-law claims of assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Connecticut Constitution. (Doc. 1.)
Discovery is complete. Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 75 & 76.) On March 26, 2015, the court conducted a hearing on the motions at which all parties were represented by counsel. The court will consider the claims against the individual officers first and then the claim against the City. The court will also consider the City's motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's police practices expert David Stothers from trial. (Doc. 77.)
This case arises out of an incident that took place a few minutes before midnight on December 17, 2004. The parties agree that plaintiff was standing in the northbound travel lane on Union Place in Hartford, Connecticut. His back was to the street and he was facing the passenger side of a double-parked automobile. (Doc. 81 ¶ 1.) Other people were on foot that evening in the area, which has several bars and restaurants.
Hartford Police Detective Troy Gordon was traveling northbound on Union Place in an unmarked police car. Detective Gordon was dressed in street clothes. He and plaintiff exchanged unfriendly words as he drove past. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Detective Gordon stopped his car and approached plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 5.)
At this point, the two stories diverge. Detective Gordon's version is that he got out of his car to speak with plaintiff. He pulled his badge out from his shirt so that it was visible around his neck. (Doc. 81-6 at 4, 14.) As he approached plaintiff, plaintiff moved towards him. Plaintiff swore at him and attempted to punch him. (Doc. 75-2 at 2.) Detective Gordon kicked plaintiff in the shin in an effort to stop him from advancing. (Doc. 81 -6 at 7.) Officer Allen, a uniformed officer who was traveling in a patrol car behind Detective Gordon on Union Place, came to Detective Gordon's aid and struck plaintiff's raised arm from behind with his baton. (Doc. 81-21 at 4.) Officer Allen struck plaintiff again from behind, this time on the head. (Doc. 75-2 ¶¶ 6-10). Plaintiff fell to the ground. Plaintiff continued to fight with the police by kicking at them. In response, Officer Allen struck at plaintiff's leg with his baton. (Doc. 81-22 at 15.)
Plaintiff's version is that Detective Gordon exited his car without identifying himself as a police officer. (Doc. 81-1 at 9; Doc. 81-2 at 2.) Plaintiff states that he never saw Gordon's badge during the incident. (Doc. 81-1 at 11.) Detective Gordon charged plaintiff while holding something dark in his left hand that plaintiff thought was a gun. (Doc. 81-2 at 3-4.) Plaintiff thought Detective Gordon was going to shoot him. (Doc. 81-2 at 9.) When Detective Gordon got close enough, he kicked plaintiff twice, the first time in the stomach. (Doc. 81 at 10.) At the same time, plaintiff was struck on the back of his head with something that felt like a bat. (Doc. 81-2 at 10.) Plaintiff fell to the ground and assumed a fetal position. He was struck repeatedlyill the head and right knee by a bat-like object. (Doc. 81 at 11.) He was also struck in the face and legs. He was lacked. (Id. at 12-13.) He suffered a fracture of his right knee and injury to his face and head. (Id.) Other officers appeared and joined in the assault on plaintiff where he lay on the street. (Id. at 15.) Officer Allen grabbed plaintiff's collar and dragged him sixty-two feet to wait for an ambulance. (Id. at 18.)
Plaintiff's expert David Stothers has provided an opinion concerning alleged errors and excessive use of force by the police. He criticizes the two defendant officers for failing to interview potential witnesses to the incident, failing to identify the other officers who responded, and misidentifying the vehicle that plaintiff was facing at the time of the incident. Turning to the police conduct itself, he criticizes Officer Gordon for mishandling a minor incident of walking in the street, failing to identify himself as an officer, failing to call for assistance, failing to manage the encounter with plaintiff appropriately, using excessive force by kicking plaintiff in the stomach and shin, and writing an inadequate police report concerning the incident. Stothers criticizes Officer Allen for using his baton improperly to strike plaintiff in the head and knee and omitting important details from his report of the incident. (Doc. 81-24 at 3-7, 11-12.)
The facts concerning the claims against the City of Hartford are more complex and span several decades. As outlined by plaintiff, these facts are intended to support a Monell-type claim of systemic disregard for the treatment of civilians by the police.
The facts advanced by the City are either admitted by plaintiff or, more frequently, met with a statement that plaintiff lacks information concerning their truth. The facts upon which the City relies are as follows:
All Hartford police officers, including Troy Gordon and Michael Allen, received training at the Police Training Academy prior to the commencement of their service. The curriculum complies with the requirements of the State of Connecticut's Police Officers Standards Training Council. In addition, in the years since they were sworn into the police force both Detective Gordon and Officer Allen received additional training. Both underwent background checks before they were hired. (Doc. 76-3 ¶¶ 5-9.)
The City states that it supervised the defendant officers in the use of force. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff strongly disagrees that defendants and other Hartford Police Department (HPD) officers received supervision in the use of force. (Doc. 84 at 3.)
The City also states that plaintiff did not file a citizen's complaint concerning the use of force. (Doc. 76-3 ¶ 12.) Plaintiff counters by stating that other litigation in this court, specifically a 2007 decision by Judge Ellen Bree Burns in Cintron v. Vaughn, No. 3:69cvl3578, 2007 WL 4240856 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2007), established that there was no effective complaint procedure. (Doc. 84 at 3.)
The parties agree that in 2005, plaintiff entered an Alford plea to the offense of creating a public disturbance in connection with the incident on December 17, 2004.1
In his statement of disputed facts, plaintiff begins with a settlement stipulation entered on June 21, 1973 in this court, which required a record-keeping system for civilian complaints against police officers. See Cintron v. Vaughn, Docket No. 3:69-cv-13578 (D. Conn. June 21, 1973) (Doc. 84-19). Following the filing of a contempt motion in 2005 in the same case, Judge Bums found in 2007 that the City had failed to follow the original settlement and subsequent revisions in various respects, including the failure to increase the number of Internal Affairs investigators during the years 2004-06. (Doc. 84-3 at 7-9.) The City avoided a finding of contempt by initiating training and oilier measures in 2005. (Doc. 84-3 at 8.) Plaintiff attributes the incident involved in this case to the City's delay in instituting the original settlement stipulation and taking the required measures to reduce the number of violent incidents involving the police and civilians. (Doc. 83 at 9.)
Plaintiff states that from 1998 to 2005 there have been eighty-eight claims of possible excessive force against Hartford police officers and sixty-five lawsuits filed on these grounds. (Docs. 84 at 20; 84-8; 84-9.)
Plaintiff alleges that both officers involved in this case had a history of complaints. The record shows complaints against Detective Gordon for shooting a raccoon with his personal weapon at his own home while on duty in 2003, threatening another officer in 2000, and placing a woman in handcuffs at a traffic stop in 1994. (Docs. 84 at 14; 84-2 at 92.) Each incident resulted in Gordon's suspension or reprimand. Plaintiff alleges that Gordon's supervisor at the time of the altercation in this case had insufficient knowledge of these incidents. Plaintiff further states that Officer Allen was accused in 2004 of excessive force when he struck a civilian in the head with his baton with enough force to break the baton. (Doc. 84 at 18-19.) Plaintiff also points to an incident in 2006 when Officer Allen was accused of entering a residence illegally, as well as a separate use-of-force incident, the details of which are not specified. (Doc. 84 at 19.)
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant 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). In considering a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
A. Fourth Amendment Claims Against Individual Police Officers
Defendants Troy Gordon and Michael Allen move for summary judgment in their favor on plaintiff's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial