Powell v. City of Ocean City
| Decision Date | 28 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14-4395 |
| Parties | Norma Powell, Plaintiff, v. City of Ocean City, et. al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez
This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Summary Judgment [79] filed on behalf of Defendants City of Ocean City, Officer Laura Hall, and Sergeant D. Dubbs. The Court has considered the written submissions of the parties, as well as the arguments made on the record during the hearing on July 13, 2016. For the reasons expressed on the record that day, as well as those that follow, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On July 11, 2012 Plaintiff Norma Powell was arrested and detained for driving under the influence after an eyewitness alerted police to the fact that Powell's vehicle struck the Longport Bridge Toll Booth causing damage to her car and to the booth. See Officer Hall's incident Report, Ex. 2. Powell failed two components of a field sobriety test when she was unable to recite the alphabet and could not maintain balance. Id. On her own volition, Powell unsuccessfully attempted to perform the "Walk and Turn" test. Id. Officer Hall's Drinking-Driving Report indicated that Powell was unable to walk and stand, was swaying, had slurred speech with a sleepy demeanor, and that her eyes were bloodshot and her eyelids were droopy. See id. At the police station, Powell's lung disease and prescription medication prevented her from producing a reading on a breathalyzer and from producing a sufficient urine specimen despite being given and having consumed ten cups of water.1 Id.
Sergeant Dubbs, the City's Drug Recognition Expert ("DRE") performed an independent evaluation of Powell and noted that he could not detect a smell of alcohol and concluded that Powell was under the influence of a CNS Depressant and/or a Narcotic Analgesic. See Drug Influence Evaluation Report, Ex. 7; Dubbs Dep. at 57:7-10.2 Time passed without Powell producing a urine sample. As a result, she was taken to the Shore Memorial Hospital, where her blood was drawn and a urine sample wasprocured by a catheter. See Officer Hall's incident Report, Ex. 2. Defendant Officer Hall was present during the catheterization and held the collection cup. See Hall Dep. at 60:1-25. Powell, who was unconscious at the time of the procedure, contends that she contracted an infection as a result of the catheter.
On July 11, 2014, Powell filed a sixteen (16) count Complaint alleging various causes of action against the City of Ocean City, Office Laura Hall, and Sergeant Daniel Dubbs (Ocean City Defendants) and the Shore Memorial Hospital, Nurse Page, and Nurse Ruiz (Hospital Defendants). The Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Ocean City Defendants on April 28, 2015. Then, on December 1, 2015, the Court denied the motions for summary judgment and to dismiss of both Shore Memorial Hospital and Kathryn Page, R.N. Defendant Jessica Ruiz's cross motions were also denied, but without prejudice and with the right to refile upon the conclusion of discovery.
Presently at issue are Defendants City of Ocean City's, Officer Laura Hall's, and Sergeant Daniel Dubbs's motion for summary judgment as to Counts II (excessive force), VI (unreasonable search and seizure), VIII (conspiracy), X (municipal liability) and on the doctrine of qualified immunity.
A court will grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471, 482 n.1 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). Thus, this Court will enter summary judgment only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 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 (c).
An issue is "genuine" if supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is "material" if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Initially, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Maidenbaum v. Bally's Park Place, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 1254, 1258 (D.N.J. 1994). Thus, to withstand a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict those offered by the moving party. Andersen, 477 U.S. at 256-57. Indeed, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
In deciding the merits of a party's motion for summary judgment, the court's role is not to evaluate the evidence and decide the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Credibility determinations are the province of the finder of fact. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992).
Defendants raise several arguments in favor of summary judgment. First, Defendants argue Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that any force was employed during her catheterization and/or blood draw merits summary judgment on the excessive force claim as plead in Count II. Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the search and seizure were unjustified warranting summary judgment on Count VI. Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants conspired or agreed to violate her civil rights as plead in Count VIII. Fourth, Defendants argue that summary judgment is warranted on Plaintiff's claim of municipal liability as plead in Count X. Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show that a constitutional right was violated or that the right was clearly established at the time of her arrest.
The Court will analyze the arguments within the context of the qualified immunity framework.
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability forcivil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Thus, government officials are immune from suit in their individual capacities unless, "taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, ... the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right" and "the right was clearly established" at the time of the objectionable conduct. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).
For a right to be clearly established, "[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Saucier 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). That is, "[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 492 (2006). "If the officer's mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable," the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Couden, 446 F.3d at 492 (internal citations omitted). Further, "[i]f officers of reasonable competence could disagree on th[e]issue, immunity should be recognized." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). See also Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (). Finally, because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, the burden of proving its applicability rests with the defendant. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 142, n. 15 (3d Cir. 2001).
Courts may exercise discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Here, the Court will address whether the constitutional right Powell claims was violated was clearly established before addressing whether a constitutional violation occurred.
Plaintiff argues that the right to be free from a warrantless catheterization search was clearly established on July 11, 2012. In this regard, Plaintiff relies on Jiosi v. Twp. Of Nutley, 332 N.J. Super. 169, 181, 753 A.2d 132 (2000) to establish that a law enforcement...
To continue reading
Request your trial