Reeves v. Chafin
| Decision Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 19-0687 JB/LF,CIV 19-0687 JB/LF |
| Citation | 547 F.Supp.3d 1056 |
| Parties | Demall REEVES, Plaintiff, v. Joshua CHAFIN, No. 5539 of the Albuquerque Police Department, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Ray Twohig, Ray Twohig, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Esteban A. Aguilar Jr., City Attorney, Kristin J. Dalton, Peter Haynes, Assistant City Attorneys, City of Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendant.
James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendant Joshua Chafin's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 18)("MSJ"); (ii) the Defendant Joshua Chafin's Motion for Stay of Discovery, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 20)("Motion for Stay"); (iii) the Plaintiff's Motion for Further Extension to Respond to Defendant[’]s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 13, 2020 (Doc. 30)("Motion for Extension"); and (iv) the Plaintiff's Motion for Furthe[r] Extension to File Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 18, 2021 (Doc. 52)("Motion for Extension on Response to MSJ"). The Court held hearings on February 11, 2021, and March 29, 2021. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed February 11, 2021 (Doc. 49); Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed March 29, 2021 (Doc. 61). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should grant Plaintiff Demall Reeves an extension of time to respond to the MSJ so that he can undertake limited discovery under rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether the Court should stay discovery pending a decision on the MSJ, because Defendant Joshua Chafin, a police officer with the Albuquerque Police Department ("APD"), has asserted a defense of qualified immunity; (iii) whether the Court should consider Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Joshua Chafin's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 15, 2021 (Doc. 51)("Response"), even though it was submitted after the deadline; (iv) whether the three-year 41 U.S.C. § 1983 statute of limitations bars Reeves’ (a) false arrest claim, and (b) malicious prosecution claim; and (v) whether Chafin is entitled to qualified immunity, because (a) Chafin had probable cause to arrest Reeves for misdemeanor criminal property damage, and (b) Chafin did not violate clearly established law. The Court concludes that (i) the Motion for Extension is denied, for the reasons stated on the record, because (a) discovery related to damages in response to a motion for summary judgment is not appropriate, (b) the evidence on the record shows there is a reasonable inference of malice, and (c) discovery under rule 56(d) is not appropriate as a fishing expedition on a motion for summary judgment where qualified immunity is asserted, see Draft Transcript of Hearing at 36:22-38:10 (taken February 11, 2021)(Court)("Tr.")( reasons);2 Lewis v. City of Ft. Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 759 (10th Cir. 1990) ; (ii) the Motion for Stay is granted, for the reasons stated on the record, because Reeves agrees that Chafin is entitled to a stay of discovery, see Tr. at 38:23-39:6 (Court, Twohig); (iii) the Court will consider the Response to the MSJ, because the Court wants to decide the issues on the merits; (iv) the statute of limitations (a) bars Reeves’ false arrest claim, because Reeves filed the Complaint for Damages, filed Jury 26, 2019 (Doc. 2)("Complaint"), more than three years after the June 30, 2016, incident, but (b) does not bar his malicious prosecution claim, because Reeves filed the Complaint within three years of when the state criminal complaint was denied; and (v) Chafin is entitled to qualified immunity, because (a) Chafin did not violate Reeves’ constitutional rights, because Chafin had probable cause to arrest Reeves for misdemeanor criminal property damage, and (b) Chafin did not violate clearly established law, meaning Chafin is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the Court grants the MSJ.
This case arises out of a June 30, 2016, incident related to property damage, and the subsequent criminal complaint and summons that Chafin lodged against Reeves. See Officer Chafin's Police Report No. 160060181 at 2, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 18-3)("Police Report"); Declaration of Plaintiff Demall Reeves ¶¶ 18-33, at 5-13 taken October 12, 2020 (Doc. 30-1)("Reeves Decl."); Criminal Summons at 1, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 18-3)(filed in state court on July 7, 2016). See also Defendant Joshua Chafin's Notice of Lodging, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 19)(providing notice that Chafin filed a flash drive containing video exhibits in support of his MSJ documenting the June 30, 2016, incident: Lapel Video AXON_Flex_Video_2016-06-30_2219 ("Axon BWC3 Video 1")(filed as Chafin's Exhibit 3); AXON_Flex_Video_2016-06-30_2237 ("Axon BWC Video 2")(filed as Chafin's Exhibit 4); AXON_Flex_Video_2016-06-30_2255 ("Axon BWC Video 3")(filed as Chafin's Exhibit 5), AXON_Flex_Video_2016-07-01_0013 ("Axon BWC Video 4")(filed as Chafin's Exhibit 6); and AXON_Flex_Video_2016-07-01_0631 ("Axon BWC Video 5")(filed as Chafin's Exhibit 7). On June 30, 2016, Reeves, the owner of security company, was moving property off the parking lot for a hotel for which he worked. See Reeves Decl. ¶¶ 16-23, at 4-8. Reeves was moving the property from the hotels’ parking lot, because the property was blocking the parking lot and the people who had placed the property there did not have permission from the hotel. See Reeves Decl. ¶¶ 16-23, at 4-8; id. at ¶ 19, at 6-7 (); Police Report at 2. Chafin arrived on scene after being dispatched to respond to a call that a man had thrown and damaged property. See Police Report at 2; Axon BWC Video 1 at 2:50-9:55. Chafin talked to Reeves, who identified himself as the head of the security company for the hotel, and Reeves denied damaging any of the items, suggested that it was homeless people who had caused any damage, and stated that he had a witness and camera footage showing that he had not caused any damage. See Police Report at 2; Reeves Decl. ¶¶ 18-27, at 6-11; Axon BWC Video 1 at 0:30-9:55. Reeves showed Chafin pictures of the property, and Chafin writes that Reeves Police Report at 2. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 26, at 11 ( Reeves showed Chafin pictures); Axon BWC Video 1 at 6:30-9:30 (documenting Reeves showing Chafin pictures). After investigating the scene and the interviewing the property owner, who wanted to press charges, Chafin informed Reeves that, although, he had probable cause to arrest Reeves, he would instead charge Reeves with misdemeanor criminal property damage. See Police Report at 2-3; Reeves Decl. ¶ 27, at 11; Axon BWC Video 2 at 0:30-9:00. Next, Chafin talked to a witness, a resident of the hotel, who stated that he had seen the incident. See Police Report at 2; Reeves Decl. ¶ 27, at 11; Axon BWC Video 3 at 2:20-8:45 (documenting the interaction). Chafin called another witness, who described damage to the items. See Axon BWC Video 4 (documenting Chafin's phone call with the witness). The next day, Chafin talked to Reeves’ employee, Dawn Weeber, who had notified Reeves of the property on the parking lot and who had witnessed part of the incident. See Police Report at 2-3; Reeves Decl. ¶ 28, at 11; Axon BWC Video 5 at 2:50-9:55.
On July 6, 2016, Chafin filed a state criminal complaint and summons, charging Reeves for misdemeanor criminal property damage less than $1,000.00, for violating N.M.S.A. § 30-15-1. See Criminal Summons at 1, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 18-3). On or about July 27, 2016, William Smith, the owner of the hotel Reeves worked for, fired Reeves. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 33, at 13; MSJ at 1-22 (). Smith said that the police gave him a report documenting Reeves’ criminal recording, including his juvenile criminal record. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 33, at 13-14; MSJ at 1-22 (). Smith did not identify the officer who had given him the criminal history report, even though Reeves asked three times. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 33, at 13-14; MSJ at 1-22 (). Reeves called Smith multiple times to ask Smith who had given him the criminal history report, but Smith did not answer the calls. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 33, at 13-14; MSJ at 1-22 (). For the next three months, Reeves applied for security work at hotels, parking lots, bars and other businesses, but he was not able to find employment. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 36, at 15; MSJ at 1-22 (). While working for Smith, Reeves earned between $800.00 to $900.00 every two weeks after expenses. See Reeves Decl. ¶ 37, at 15; MSJ at 1-22 ().
On September 2, 2016, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court dismissed the state criminal complaint without prejudice, because Chafin did not appear in court. See Order Dismissing Criminal Complaint at 1, filed June 17, 2020 (Doc. 18-4). The charges were not refiled. See Reeves Decl. ¶¶ 29-38, at 12-16; see MSJ at 1-22 ().
Reeves brings two claims under § 1983: (i) Chafin "violated his constitutional right to be free from unlawful seizure by virtue of his unlawful arrest through a summons process"; and (ii) Chafin "violated his constitutional right ... to due process of law for prosecuting him unlawfully." First Amended Complaint for Damages at 1, filed July 26, 2019 (Doc. 6)("First Amended Complaint")(no paragraph number). The Court concludes that (i) the statute of limitations bars Reeves’ false arrest claim, but not the malicious prosecution claim; and (ii) Chafin is entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial