Pritchard v. Mobley
| Decision Date | 30 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:20-CV-00060-M |
| Parties | Teresa PRITCHARD as Administrator of the Estate of Cedric D. Pritchard, Plaintiff, v. Aaron M. MOBLEY, in his individual capacity, and City of Washington, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Sean P. Cecil, Edelstein and Payne, Raleigh, NC, Carlos E. Mahoney, Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, P.A., Durham, NC, for Plaintiff.
Clay Allen Collier, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Crossley McIntosh Collier Hanley & Edes, PLLC, Wilmington, NC, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [DE 30] on the federal civil rights and state tort claims brought by Teresa Pritchard on behalf of her son's estate (the Estate). Qualified immunity bars the Estate's claim against Officer Mobley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Likewise, public official immunity bars the Estate's civil battery claim against Officer Mobley. This leaves no basis for holding the City of Washington (the City) vicariously liable for civil battery. Thus, the court grants Defendants’ motion.
This civil rights action arises from the fatal shooting of Cedric Pritchard by Officer Aaron Mobley of the City of Washington Police Department on October 21, 2018.
The Estate, through Teresa Pritchard, filed this action against Officer Mobley and the City on April 6, 2020 [DE 1]. The Estate sues Officer Mobley in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, DE 1 ¶ 27, alleging that he violated Pritchard's Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force, DE 1 ¶¶ 58–67. The Estate also sues Officer Mobley in his individual capacity under North Carolina law, DE 1 ¶ 28, alleging that he committed a civil battery, DE 1 ¶¶ 68–73. Finally, the Estate sues the City for civil battery under the doctrine of respondeat superior, DE 1 ¶¶ 30–31, alleging that Officer Mobley committed a civil battery within the course and scope of his employment, see DE 1 ¶¶ 74–75. Defendants answered [DE 13], pleading as defenses qualified immunity, public official immunity1 , and sovereign immunity.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that (1) Officer Mobley acted reasonably or (2) official immunity doctrines bar the Estate's claims. See DE 30 at 1. The Estate responded [DE 41], arguing that genuinely disputed material facts preclude summary judgment. Defendants replied [DE 46].
After making all reasonable inferences in the Estate's favor, the court finds that:
1. On October 21, 2018, Officer Aaron Mobley was employed as a Senior Patrol Officer with the City of Washington Police Department. DE 34-1 at 7.
2. Just before 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Officer Mobley saw a blue Pontiac Aztec drive past his patrol vehicle and turn onto Washington Street. See DE 34-1 at 116; DE 31-2 ¶¶ 5–7. 3. Officer Mobley recognized the driver as Cedric Pritchard. DE 31-2 ¶ 8.
4. He knew that someone else owned the Aztec, DE 31-2 ¶ 6, and that Pritchard lacked a valid driver's license, DE 31-2 ¶ 11.
5. Officer Mobley requested confirmation of the status of Pritchard's license as he drove around the block to wait for the Aztec. See DE 34-1 at 118–19; DE 34-18 at 14:48:06–14:48:27.
6. Pritchard continued down Washington Street, and Officer Mobley turned to follow him. See DE 34-1 at 119-20; DE 34-18 at 14:48:27–14:48:33.
7. Officer Mobley followed the Aztec for less than ten seconds before Pritchard braked and cut across the oncoming lane. See DE 34-18 at 14:48:30–14:48:38.
8. Pritchard stopped the Aztec in front of a multifamily home at 1105 Washington Street. See DE 34-18 at 14:48:38–14:48:45; DE 31-2 ¶ 17.
9. Officer Mobley activated his patrol vehicle's blue lights and parked one car length behind the Aztec. DE 34-1 at 120; DE 31-2 ¶ 18.
10. He believed reasonable suspicion supported the stop because Pritchard crossed the oncoming lane of traffic and parked on the left-hand curb. See DE 31-2 ¶ 19; DE 34-1 at 121.
11. Officer Mobley reported the traffic stop over his police radio. See DE 34-1 at 122–24.
12. He did not call for backup and was the only officer present. See DE 34-1 at 129.
13. He suspected Pritchard might try to run, see DE 34-1 at 123–24, because he stopped in a "sudden and unexpected" manner, DE 31-2 ¶ 21.
14. Still, he did not believe it was a "known risk" or "hot" traffic stop. DE 34-1 at 129.
15. Officer Mobley had heard Pritchard was a felon from Officer Folk earlier that day but knew nothing else about his criminal history. See DE 34-1 at 94.
16. This conversation took place when Officer Mobley arrived at the stationhouse for his shift and found Officer Folk logging evidence from a shootout that had occurred the night before. See DE 34-1 at 91–93.
17. Officer Folk told Officer Mobley that he and the detective working the case suspected Pritchard was involved and had used a revolver based on bullets recovered from the scene. See DE 34-1 at 92.
18. Officer Folk also told Officer Mobley that the officers had not found anything when they searched Pritchard that night near the scene. See DE 34-1 at 94.
19. Officer Folk submitted an investigation report on the shooting that includes these observations, see DE 34-27, but Officer Mobley had not seen it, see DE 34-1 at 93.
20. Two nights prior, Officer Mobley responded to an armed robbery call. DE 34-1 at 87.
21. Pritchard was the only man at the scene wearing clothing matching the caller's description of the perpetrator. DE 34-1 at 87–88.
22. The alleged victim did not cooperate with the investigation, and Officer Mobley turned his attention to ticketing a drug offender without talking to Pritchard. See DE 34-1 at 88 ().
23. When he made the stop, Officer Mobley did not believe Pritchard was "armed or dangerous." See DE 34-1 at 129.
24. Nor did he believe that the police were "actively looking for [Pritchard] for any reason." DE 34-1 at 94.
25. Officer Mobley left his patrol vehicle and began walking toward the Aztec. See DE 34-1 at 126; DE 31-2 ¶ 24.
26. As Officer Mobley reached the front of his patrol vehicle, Pritchard opened the driver's side door of the Aztec. See DE 31-2 ¶ 24; DE 34-22 at 6–7, Figs. 7–8.2
27. At the instant he began opening the door, 5.4 seconds had passed since Pritchard stopped the Aztec. DE 34-22 at 11.
28. Pritchard jumped from the Aztec, facing back toward Officer Mobley. DE 34-22 at 7, Fig. 9.
29. As he did so, Pritchard extended his right arm out beyond the door. Id.
30. Officer Mobley saw a small, black pistol in Pritchard's right hand. DE 34-1 at 129–30; DE 31-2 ¶ 24; see also DE 34-22 at 7, Fig. 9 ().
31. Officer Mobley immediately reached for his service weapon upon seeing Pritchard's pistol. See DE 34-1 at 130; DE 31-2 ¶ 26.
32. Pritchard turned away from Officer Mobley and ran toward the residence. See DE 34-22 at 8–9, Figs. 11–12.
33. Pritchard swung his arms in a normal running motion without turning his right side back toward Officer Mobley. See id. ; DE 34-1 at 134.
34. Pritchard did not point the muzzle of his pistol at Officer Mobley as he did so.
35. Officer Mobley fired his service weapon as Pritchard's right arm swung backward with the pistol in his hand. See DE 34-22 at 9, Figs. 12–13.
36. Officer Mobley fired this shot approximately 1.3 seconds after he saw Pritchard emerging from the Aztec holding the pistol. See DE 34-22 at 7–9, Figs. 9, 13 ().
37. Pritchard was just over twenty feet from Officer Mobley. DE 34-22 at 22.
38. In the next half-second, Officer Mobley took a step forward and fired a second shot. See DE 34-22 at 10, Fig. 14.
39. One bullet struck Pritchard in his back to the left of his spine and passed through his heart. See DE 34-26 at 2–4 ().
40. The other bullet struck Pritchard in his right buttock. Id. 41. Officer Mobley does not know which bullet corresponds to which shot. See DE 34-1 at 191.
42. Pritchard fell to the ground near the front steps of the residence. See DE 34-19 at 15:53:25–15:53:41 (showing Pritchard on a paved walkway by the handrail).
43. A black revolver was found near where Pritchard fell. See DE 34-19 at 15:53:39 (showing the revolver in the grass by the walkway); see also DE 34-1 at 172 ().
44. Pritchard died at the scene from the shot to his back. DE 34-10 at 6.
45. Officer Mobley did not call out Pritchard's name before firing. See DE 34-1 at 136 ().
46. Officer Mobley did not give a verbal command to stop or drop the weapon or a warning that he was about to shoot. DE 34-1 at 136.
47. Officer Mobley saw an elderly person open the door of 1105 Washington Street after the shooting but does not remember seeing anyone in the area at the time of the shooting. See DE 34-1 at 148.
48. Officer Mobley did not activate his body camera until at least one minute after the shooting. See DE 34-1 at 128, 143; DE 31-2 ¶ 33.
Normal summary judgment rules apply to excessive force claims. Stanton v. Elliott , 25 F.4th 227, 234 (4th Cir. 2022). The question remains whether any material facts are genuinely disputed. See id. Sedar v. Reston Town Ctr. Prop., LLC , 988 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 2021). Courts must view the...
To continue reading
Request your trial