Peters v. Woodbury Cnty.

• Decision Date: 25 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. C 12–4070–MWB.,C 12–4070–MWB.
• Citation: 979 F.Supp.2d 901
• Parties: Shannon M. PETERS, Plaintiff, v. WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA; Glenn J. Parrett, Individually and as Sheriff of Woodbury County, Iowa; and Michelle Risdal, Lee Blanchard, Jonathan Hatfield, and Carlos Lucero, Individually and as Deputy Sheriffs/Jailers of Woodbury County, Iowa, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

979 F.Supp.2d 901

Shannon M. PETERS, Plaintiff,
v.
WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA; Glenn J. Parrett, Individually and as Sheriff of Woodbury County, Iowa; and Michelle Risdal, Lee Blanchard, Jonathan Hatfield, and Carlos Lucero, Individually and as Deputy Sheriffs/Jailers of Woodbury County, Iowa, Defendants.

No. C 12–4070–MWB.

United States District Court,
N.D. Iowa,
Western Division.

Oct. 25, 2013.

[979 F.Supp.2d 908]

David A. O'Brien, Willey, O'Brien, LC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Timothy C. Boller, Thomas C. Verhulst, Gallagher, Langlas & Gallagher, PC, Waterloo, IA, John C. Gray, Heidman Law Firm, LLP, Sioux City, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND REPORT OF DONALD LEACH, II, AND DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.
INTRODUCTION
910

A.
Factual Background For Summary Judgment
910

1.	Peters's arrest and booking	911
2.	Events upon arrival at the holding cell	912
3.	Escalation of the incident in the holding cell	912
4.	Subsequent events	913

B.	Factual Background For The Motion To Exclude Expert Evidence	914
C.	Procedural Background	916

1.	Peters's claims	916
2.	The pending motions	917

II.
PETERS'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT
917

A.	Arguments Of The Parties	918
B.	Analysis	918

1.	Applicable standards	918
2.	Application of the standards	920

a.	Peters's “reliability” challenge	920
b.	Peters's “relevancy” challenge	921

C.
Summary
925

III.
THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
925

A.	Summary Judgment Standards	926
B.	Challenges Based On Qualified Immunity	926

1.	Standards for qualified immunity	926
2.	The “violation of privacy rights” claim	929

a.
Source of the right
930

i.	Arguments of the parties	930
ii.	Analysis	930

b.
Nature of the conduct
931

i.	Arguments of the parties	931
ii.	Analysis	932
iii.	Summary	940

c.
Violation of the right
940

i.	Arguments of the parties	940
ii.	Analysis	941
iii.	Summary	945

d.
“Clearly established” right
945

i.	Arguments of the parties	945
ii.	Analysis	946

e.
Summary
948

3.
The “excessive force” claim
948

a.	Source of the right	948
b.	Violation of the right	949

i.	Arguments of the parties	949
ii.	Analysis	950
iii.	Summary	962

c.
“Clearly established” right
963

i.	Arguments of the parties	963
ii.	Analysis	963

d.
Summary
964

4.
The “First Amendment retaliation” claim
964

a.	Arguments of the parties	965
b.	Analysis	966
c.	Summary	970

C.
Challenges To Claims Based On The Iowa Constitution
971

1.	Arguments of the parties	971
2.	Analysis	971

D.
Challenges To “Monell Liability”
971

1.	Arguments of the parties	972
2.	Analysis	972

IV.
CONCLUSION
973

[979 F.Supp.2d 909]

Did male and female county jail officers cross a constitutional line when they forcibly removed clothing from a female arrested for a misdemeanor offense who refused to answer “suicide” questions during booking and refused to change into a jail uniform in front of a female officer? In this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the female arrestee asserts that the defendant jail officers “strip searched” her without reasonable suspicion and in an unconstitutional

[979 F.Supp.2d 910]

manner, used “excessive force” in doing so, and did so in retaliation for her vociferous complaints about the order to strip in front of a female officer, all in violation of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. She also contends that the defendant county and the defendant former county sheriff are subject to “Monell liability” for the jail officers' constitutional torts. The defendants have moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims, primarily on the ground that the defendant jail officers are entitled to qualified immunity, but also on the ground that there is no cause of action for a violation of rights under the Iowa Constitution and that there is no basis for “Monell liability” of the county and the former county sheriff. As a preliminary matter, the plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony and report of the defendants' expert, because she argues that the expert has applied the wrong legal standard to her “excessive force” claim and has opined on legal conclusions that are within the province of the court. Although I find that the pending motions present some knotty issues, I conclude that the appropriate disposition of these motions is clear.

I. INTRODUCTION A. Factual Background For Summary Judgment

My determination of what facts are actually disputed in this case—and then whether those disputes are genuine—has been complicated by the parties' submissions and, sometimes, by the lack thereof. In the first instance, the factual background stated here is drawn primarily from the defendants' Joint Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts In Support Of Their Motions For Summary Judgment (docket no. 42–1) and the plaintiff's Response To Defendants' Joint Statement Of Undisputed Facts In Support Of Their Motions For Summary Judgment (docket no. 53–3). The plaintiff did not submit a statement of additional material facts that she contends preclude summary judgment, however, as required by N.D. IA. L.R. 56(b)(3). Even so, the parties apparently agree that the defendants' Joint Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts and the plaintiff's Response are not exhaustive of factual issues material to the defendants' Motions For Summary Judgment, because both the defendants and the plaintiff repeatedly recite and rely on additional facts in their briefs, both with and without adequate citations to the parties' appendices or other portions of the record. A further problem here is that the plaintiff has failed to respond to several of the defendants' individual statements of material facts by expressly admitting or denying them, and she has sometimes made what appear to be denials without any references or only imprecise references to parts of the record supporting her refusal to admit the stated facts, contrary to the requirements of N.D. IA. L.R. 56(b). Thus, some of the facts are deemed undisputed because of the plaintiff's failure to respond appropriately to the defendants' pertinent statements of undisputed facts. See N.D. Ia. L.R. 56(b). ¹

[979 F.Supp.2d 911]

Thus, unless otherwise indicated, the facts stated below are from the defendants' Joint Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts, and the plaintiff has expressly admitted them.

1. Peters's arrest and booking

Sioux City police officers arrested plaintiff Shannon Peters on May 27, 2012, for violation of a no contact order. The defendants elsewhere assert, and Peters does not dispute, that she was arrested after police stopped a speeding car, in which Peters's boyfriend, against whom she had obtained a no contact order, was the driver and Peters was a passenger. Peters elsewhere asserts, and told the Defendant Officers at the time of her booking, that she believed that the no contact order had been dropped, but she now admits that she was mistaken. Peters was taken to the Woodbury County Jail, and, upon arrival there, she was taken to the booking counter, where defendant Officer Michelle Risdal and defendant Officer Jon Hatfield were already present. Peters was crying while she was at the counter.² At the time that she arrived at the jail, Peters was wearing a swimsuit under her shirt and sweat pants.

Citing a video of Peters's booking, the defendants contend that, while at the booking counter, after several minutes of sobbing, Peters suddenly became agitated and upset and repeatedly shouted, “This is bullshit” at the officers, then refused to answer all of the booking questions, including the medical and “suicide” questions. Peters denies these allegations, citing the same video. Sergeant Lee Blanchard came into the booking area and directed the officers to terminate the booking process prior to completion.³ Officer Risdal, the only female officer present, escorted Peters to a holding cell, and two male officers, Officer Hatfield and Sergeant Blanchard, followed.

[979 F.Supp.2d 912]

2. Events upon arrival at the holding cell

Officer Risdal and Peters entered a holding cell, but Officer Hatfield remained outside in the hallway. The parties agree that Sergeant Blanchard was also in the hallway, but dispute whether he could see into the holding cell and whether or not there was “screaming” at that point. The defendants assert that Sergeant Blanchard went to the doorway of the cell and asked Officer Risdal if Peters had answered the “suicide” questions, and Officer Risdal then repeated three “suicide” questions. The defendants assert that Peters refused to answer and, instead, turned to Officer Risdal and yelled, “Why the fuck would I wanna hurt myself!” Peters admits only that she responded, “Why the fuck would I want to hurt myself,” but denies the rest of these facts, apparently including the defendants' allegation of the question that prompted this response. Unfortunately, the video of the hallway to the holding cells, on which both parties in part rely, does not show the inside of the holding cell in which Peters was placed, so that it does not allow me to determine beyond dispute precisely what happened, and the audio on the recording does not allow me to determine beyond dispute precisely what was said during this exchange.

In the holding cell, Officer Risdal explained to Peters that Peters would have to take off her swimsuit. In her deposition, Officer Risdal explained that she directed Peters to do so, because the swimsuit had strings on it that Peters could use to harm herself. At this point, Sergeant Blanchard left the cell and joined Officer Hatfield in the hallway, so that the only officer in the cell with Peters was a female officer, Officer Risdal. Peters refused to remove her clothing.⁴

3. Escalation of the incident in the holding cell

Peters continued to scream at Officer Risdal and to refuse to remove her clothing, and when Sergeant Blanchard looked back into the cell, he saw Peters standing facing Officer Risdal in what he considered an aggressive manner. ⁵ Sergeant Blanchard and Officer Hatfield then reentered the cell,...