Ruda v. Boisvert

• Decision Date: 13 October 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 3:19-CV-232-WKW [WO]
• Citation: Ruda v. Boisvert, CASE NO. 3:19-CV-232-WKW [WO] (M.D. Ala. Oct 13, 2020)
• Parties: MICHAEL ELIAS RUDA, Plaintiff, v. TOBIS BOISVERT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

MICHAEL ELIAS RUDA, Plaintiff, v. TOBIS BOISVERT, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:19-CV-232-WKW [WO]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

October 13, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Shortly after midnight on March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Elias Ruda was arrested in the parking lot of the Glory Days bar on multiple charges, including driving under the influence. Mr. Ruda alleges that three Phenix City police officers—Tobias Boisvert, Michael Bettencourt, and Joshua Geiger—unlawfully arrested him without probable cause and used excessive force to effectuate his unlawful arrest. He sues the officers in their individual capacities for violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his rights under Alabama law. Before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Mr. Ruda moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the § 1983 claims (Doc. # 54), and Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims and State-agent immunity on the state law claims (Doc. # 58).

After careful consideration, the court finds that genuine disputes of material fact preclude the entry of summary judgment for either side on the § 1983 Fourth Amendment claims for unlawful arrest and excessive force against Officer Boisvert and on the § 1983 Fourth Amendment claims against Officers Bettencourt and Geiger for excessive force. The court further finds that Officers Bettencourt and Geiger are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim and that all Defendants are entitled to State-agent immunity on the state law claims.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Because this action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As to the claims arising under state law, the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court views the evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).

"The standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment does not differ from the standard applied when only one party files a motion, but simply requires a determination of whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on the facts that are not disputed." Ellison v. Hobbs, 334 F. Supp. 3d 1328, 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2018), aff'd, 786 F. App'x 861 (11th Cir. 2019). "[C]ross motions for summary judgment may be probative of the nonexistence of a factual dispute, but this procedural posture does not automatically empower the court to dispense with the determination whether questions of material fact exist." Ga. State Conference of NAACP v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 775 F.3d 1336, 1345 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal citation, alteration, and quotations omitted).

Finally, although the facts and reasonable inferences are drawn in the non-movant's favor, the Supreme Court has instructed the lower courts that, "when there is a reliable video recording of disputed events," the facts should be viewed "'in the light depicted by the video[].'" Davidson v. City of Opelika, 675 F. App'x 955, 957 (11th Cir. 2017) (alterations added) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007)).

III. BACKGROUND

The facts are drawn from the evidence submitted by the parties, including Mr. Ruda's affidavit, each officer's deposition testimony, the dashcam videos, and the limited stipulations. Because disputed material facts abound in this cross-motioncontext, it is unnecessary to set out separately two versions of the parties' respective accounts. These are the facts for purposes of summary judgment. At the trial, these facts may change, go away, or be added to or amplified.

It was half-past midnight on March 30, 2018, in Phenix City, Alabama; the streets were soaked with precipitation, and it was drizzling rain. Officer Boisvert, a patrol officer with the Phenix City Police Department, was in the middle of his twelve-hour shift. (Doc. # 63-6, at 111 (Boisvert Dep.).) He had stopped for a cup of coffee at the Circle K, which sits at the intersection of Highway 80 West and Auburn Road in Phenix City, Alabama (Doc. # 63-6, at 66, 95, 111), when the police department's dispatch reported: "80 West near Auburn Heights Church, reference to a possible intoxicated driver. Car involved, duty CPD officer, uh, is a white pickup truck was swerving in and outta lanes, pulled up behind the church." (Doc. # 63-6, at 47 (Boisvert's Dep.)); (Doc. # 55-20 (Dispatch Transcript).) Moments later, Officer Boisvert, who was in close proximity to the location of the call, observed a white pickup truck approaching from the direction the dispatcher had announced. (Doc. # 63-6, at 95, 117.) The pickup truck "stopped short of the stop light . . . in the middle of the road essentially." (Doc. # 63-6, at 95-96.) This maneuver caused Officer Boisvert to believe that the driver, who later turned out to be Mr. Ruda, was under the influence of alcohol and that this was the truck described by the dispatcher. (Doc. # 63-6, at 62.) Officer Boisvert got back into his patrol carto follow the truck and watched it "inching forward toward the light." (Doc. # 63-6, at 96.)

Officer Boisvert's patrol car is equipped with a dashcam video camera. The dashcam video recording begins as Officer Boisvert is driving out of the Circle K parking lot south on Auburn Road.¹ The following recounts what the dashcam video depicts, supplemented by Officer Boisvert's testimony as to events he contends the dashcam video does not depict either due to the timing, its angle, or the nighttime, rainy conditions.²

Officer Boisvert testified that, when the light turned green at the intersection of Auburn Road and Highway 80, the pickup truck "ma[d]e a left turn" onto Highway 80 and "beg[a]n fishtailing nearly striking a vehicle that was in front of the suspect vehicle." (Doc. # 63-6, at 120, 123-24.) However, Officer Boisvert testified that, because of his patrol car's position in relation to the truck's, thedashcam did not capture the pickup truck as it made the left turn. (Doc. # 63-6, at 121.) By the time that Officer Boisvert turned left onto Highway 80, the white pickup truck had gained distance and was 1,000 feet ahead of him. (Doc. # 63-6, at 129.)

On his police radio, Officer Boisvert reports that he has the white pickup truck in sight and that he is travelling east on Highway 80. After he turns on his blue lights (but not his siren), Officer Boisvert says over the radio: "Don't look like it's gonna stop, looks like it's gonna try to take off from me. [The truck is] [t]akin' a right onto 280. Traffic light. Roads are obviously wet. Can't get close enough to get the tag. I keep fishtailin'." (Doc. # 55-20.) Officer Boisvert testified also that he observed the pickup truck, which was traveling "extremely fast," hit a curb on the right side of the road but that the dashcam video recording is "too fuzzy" to capture it. (Doc. # 63-6, at 124-25.) Officer Boisvert testified that the pickup truck then came to a stop at the traffic light on Highway 280 "after nearly striking several vehicles," but he admits that the pickup truck's movement is "not visible" on the dashcam. (Doc. # 63-6, at 147, 162.) While Mr. Ruda was stopped at this traffic light, Officer Boisvert was directly behind Mr. Ruda's truck, and he says that, looking through the back rear window of the truck, he saw Mr. Ruda's head, shoulders, and upper arms moving, indicating to him that Mr. Ruda was reaching for something in his console.Officer Boisvert admitted that he could not see Mr. Ruda's hands. (Doc. # 63-6, at 168-73.)

At this point, Officer Boisvert activates his siren to accompany the blue lights as he is turning right onto Highway 280 in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop of the pickup truck. (See Doc. # 55-1, at 1 (Diagram).) Officer Boisvert still is pursuing the truck, which is traveling in the right lane of the four-lane highway, when he observes it "swerve[] over into the left lane," but he admits that this is "difficult" to see on the dashcam video "with all the rain," but that the "tire marks" are visible. (Doc. # 63-6, at 64-65.) He follows the truck, which turns into the Glory Days bar's gravel parking lot. (Doc. # 55-20); see also Doc. # 63-6, at 47-50).) Officer Boisvert testified that, after the pickup truck pulled into the Glory Days parking lot, it abruptly stopped and "almost ran into the building." (Doc. # 63-6, at 190-91.)

Officers Bettencourt and Geiger did not participate in this pursuit of Mr. Ruda. Officer Bettencourt had been listening to the police radio and turned around when he passed Officer Boisvert, who was traveling in the opposite direction with his blue lights activated. (Doc. # 63-2, at 47, 48, 55 (Bettencourt Dep.); Bettencourt Dashcam Video (Doc. # 59-11).) Officer Bettencourt and Officer Geiger first saw the white pickup truck as it was making a right turn off Highway 280, which was just prior to the truck pulling into Glory Days. (Doc. # 63-2 at 52; Doc. # 63-3, at 37 (Geiger Dep.).) By the time Officers Bettencourt and Geiger exited their patrolcars at Glory Days, Officer Boisvert was walking toward Mr. Ruda, with his firearm drawn and pointed at Mr. Ruda, who had stepped out of his truck. (Doc. # 63-3, at 33 ("[B]y the time I exited my vehicle, Corporal Boisvert was already up and approaching the driver with his weapon out."); see also Doc. # 63-3, at 35, 36, 38-39; Doc. # 63-2, at 50.) Officer Geiger did not know why...