Ratliff (Porter) v. Shelby Cnty.

• Decision Date: 28 January 2022
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-02012-TLP-atc
• Parties: DEMERRICK RATLIFF (PORTER), Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, LEE HARRIS, Individually and in his official capacity, and FLOYD BONNER, JR., Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

DEMERRICK RATLIFF (PORTER), Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, LEE HARRIS, Individually and in his official capacity, and FLOYD BONNER, JR., Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-02012-TLP-atc

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

January 28, 2022

JURY DEMAND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Demerrick Ratliff (Porter) sued Defendants Shelby County Tennessee, and Floyd Bonner, Jr. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that they wrongfully arrested and detained him based on mistaken identity. (ECF No. 26 at PageID 132-35.) The parties then filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 34 & 37.) The Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted in part Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 49.) The Court granted Defendant Bonner summary judgment on the claims against him in his individual capacity based on qualified immunity.^[1] (Id. at PageID 512.) The Court denied Defendants' summary judgment motion for the claims against Defendant Shelby County. (Id.)

Shelby County now moves again for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff has responded. (ECF No. 68.) Defendant has replied. (ECF No. 72.) And Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply.^[2] (ECF No. 79.) For the reasons below, the Court finds that Defendant Shelby County is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's remaining claims. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Defendant's summary judgment motion includes a statement of undisputed facts. (ECF No. 62-2 at PageID 572-84.) Plaintiff responded to the statement of facts. (ECF No. 68-1.) But his response lacked support from the record on many issues. And under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only) admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support that fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

When a party fails to assert a fact or challenge an assertion of fact properly, Rule 56(e) permits the court to “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion” or “grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials-including the facts considered undisputed- show that the movant is entitled to it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2)-(3). And the Court need not consider any unsupported factual assertions or materials not cited by the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); see also Gunn v. Senior Servs. of N. Ky., 632 Fed.Appx. 839, 847 (6th Cir. 2015) (“‘[C]onclusory and unsupported allegations, rooted in speculation,' are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact for trial.” (quoting Bell v. Ohio State Univ., 351 F.3d 240, 253 (6th Cir. 2003))). What is more, “[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2). So these facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated.^[3]

I. Undisputed Facts

Before delving into the specifics, the Court will give an overview of this case. Plaintiff went by the name Demerrick Javon Porter at one time.^[4] (ECF Nos. 62-9 at PageID 855-56; 68-20 at PageID 1224.) And Plaintiff's son's name is Demerrick Javon Porter, Jr. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 856.) In May 2019, a state grand jury returned an indictment against Plaintiff's son for theft of property in case number 19-03836. (ECF No. 68-12 at PageID 1192.) At that time, Plaintiff was on parole. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 865.) Plaintiff's parole officer, Kenneth Wakham, an employee of the Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”), noticed the theft of property charge while searching a Shelby County government website for new charges or warrants for Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 62-8 at PageID 839-40; 68-3 at PageID 1146-47.)

Thinking the theft charge related to Plaintiff, Wakham then generated a request to issue for a parole revocation warrant for Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 62-8 at PageID 839; 68-3 at PageID 1146.) The TDOC issued the warrant. (ECF No. 62-10 at PageID 911-12, 916.) And a Memphis Police Department (“MPD”) Officer arrested Plaintiff on that warrant and transported him to the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center (“Shelby County Jail” or “201 Poplar”). (ECF Nos. 62-12 at PageID 926; 63-3 at PageID 967.) Plaintiff's claims involve his arrest and later detention at Shelby County facilities.

A. The Mistake in Identity

When law enforcement arrests someone for the first time in Shelby County, Tennessee, the Shelby County Sheriff's Office (“SCSO”) assigns that person a unique and permanent identification number, known as a Records and Identification (“RNI” or “R&I”) number and links that number to the offender's fingerprints during the booking process. (ECF Nos. 62-3 at PageID 589; 62-13 at PageID 929.) Plaintiff's RNI number is 274883, and the RNI number for Plaintiff's son is 497832. (ECF No. 26 at PageID 133-34.) The parties agree that Plaintiff's RNI was mistakenly associated with the theft of property charge, although they dispute who is responsible. (ECF Nos. 62-2 at PageID 583; 68-1 at PageID 1110-27; 72 at PageID 1245.)

Defendant asserts that the State Attorney General mixed up Plaintiff's RNI number with that of his son. (ECF Nos. 62-2 at PageID 583.) Plaintiff alleges that Shelby County is responsible for the mistake but does not identify any Shelby County employee who specifically committed the error.^[5] (ECF No. 68 at PageID 1093-94.) In reply, Defendant concedes for summary judgment purposes that an unidentified Shelby County employee committed the error in data entry and that Plaintiff's RNI number appeared by mistake on some of his son's court documents. (ECF No. 72 at PageID 1243, 1245.)

Shelby County stores RNI numbers in a computer database known as the Offender Management System (“OMS”), which the SCSO uses for informational tracking.^[6] (ECF Nos. 62-3 at PageID 589, 642, 661; 68-4 at PageID 1158-61.) The County also maintains and operates a computerized database called the Odyssey system, which the SCSO uses for informational tracking and “to maintain records generated by General Sessions and Criminal Courts.” (ECF Nos. 62-3 at PageID 589; 68-3 at PageID 1150; 68-4 at PageID 1158, 1168.) The OMS and Odyssey systems link and interface with one another through an information hub. (ECF Nos. 62-3 at PageID 589-90; 68-4 at PageID 1159.) Plaintiff attached to his response Odyssey system printouts of case summaries related to the theft of property charge.^[7] (ECF Nos. 68-7 at PageID 1182; 68-8 at PageID 1183; 68-13 at PageID 1193.) Those printouts list both Plaintiff's RNI number and that of his son. (ECF Nos. 68-7 at PageID 1182; 68-8 at PageID 1183; 68-13 at PageID 1193.)

Parole Officer Wakham testified at his deposition that he found the theft of property charge while searching for new charges or warrants for Plaintiff on a Shelby County website, which he called “the Shelby County Portal.”^[8] (ECF Nos. 62-8 at PageID 839-40; 68-3 at PageID 1146-47.) Wakham then generated the request for a parole revocation warrant. (ECF No. 62-8 at PageID 839.)

B. The Parole Revocation Warrant

Plaintiff is a Tennessee state parolee. The Tennessee Board of Parole (the “Parole Board”) released Plaintiff on parole in April 2016. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 865.) Plaintiff agreed in writing to thirteen numbered terms as conditions of his parole. (ECF Nos. 62-9 at PageID 865-66, 884-85, 893.) For example, in Condition 2, Plaintiff agreed to “obey the laws of the United States or any state” and local ordinances where he lives. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 893.) And in Condition Number 9, Plaintiff agreed not to use or have illegal drugs and to undergo random drug testing. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 893.) Plaintiff often smoked marijuana about twice a week while on parole. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 866.) And Plaintiff used cocaine at some point during 2018. (ECF No. 62-9 at PageID 866.) The Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) issued a Notice of Sanction to Plaintiff for violating his parole in July 2019 by failing more than one drug screening. (ECF Nos. 68-6 at PageID 1180.)

In early August 2019, the TDOC issued a State Warrant for Plaintiff under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-28-607. (ECF No. 62-10 at PageID 911-12, 916.) The warrant identified its subject as Demerrick Ratliff and stated that the State had conditionally paroled him from the Shelby County Corrections Center in April 2016. (ECF No. 62-10 at PageID 916.) The warrant stated that “AS A PAROLE VIOLATOR, THIS PAROLEE IS NOT BONDABLE UNDER AUTHORITY OF T.C.A. SECTION 40-28-121.” (ECF No. 62-10 at PageID 916.) The back side of the warrant, labeled “State of Tennessee Department of Correction PAROLE VIOLATION WARRANT, ” contains Plaintiff's name, alias as Demerrick Porter, date of birth, home address, and social security number. (ECF No. 63-2 at PageID 966.)

Charles Henderson, a TDOC Warrant Officer at the time, verified the information on the warrant and signed it. (ECF No. 62-10 at PageID 910-12.) Henderson also wrote Plaintiff's RNI number on the back of the warrant. (ECF Nos. 62-10 at PageID 913; 63-2 at PageID 966.) Three days later, the TDOC issued a letter identifying Plaintiff by name with his TDOC identification number and stating:

Please be advised that under the authority vested in the Director of

...