Sanders v. City of Md. Heights, Case No. 4:14cv00238 TCM

• Decision Date: 02 December 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:14cv00238 TCM
• Parties: MELVIN SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

MELVIN SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:14cv00238 TCM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

December 2, 2015

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The matter is before the Court¹ on a motion for summary judgment [Doc. 75] filed by police officers John Portlock, Kevin Stewart, Chris Wegman, and Sam Starck² (as a group, the Court may refer to these Defendants as either "Defendant Officers" or "Movants"). Melvin Sanders ("Plaintiff") filed a brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion, and Movants filed a reply. The parties also filed statements of fact and exhibits in support of their positions on the motion.

Background

Plaintiff's pending second amended complaint³ contains three counts. Earlier, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims in Count I of the second amended complaint against the City ofMaryland Heights ("City") and in Count II of the second amended complaint against Defendant Officers sued in their official capacity. See Order, dated Apr. 7, 2015 [64]; Order, dated Feb. 23, 2015 [54]. The only count remaining before the Court is Count III, which is pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that count, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from Movants, who are sued in their individual capacities only.

This lawsuit arises out of an incident occurring outside Plaintiff's home at about 10:30 p.m. on April 9, 2012. In general, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Officers violated his rights when they responded to a 911 call from Dennis R. Stephens ("Stephens"), who was outside Plaintiff's home and reported that Plaintiff had displayed a gun. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Officers violated Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights

by physically and verbally abusing him, subjecting him to a public and unreasonable search, placing him in handcuffs, pointing a [t]aser or other weapon at his head, threatening him and using excessive force when he was standing on the driveway of his home under circumstances when Defendant . . . Officers were reliably informed and/or it was apparent that [Plaintiff] did not have a gun or was not displaying a gun and Plaintiff was not otherwise armed or threatening violence and when Plaintiff was not otherwise engaged or likely to engage in any dangerous or illegal activity; and by selectiv[ely] using their authority against Plaintiff and in favor of . . . Stephens; all because of Plaintiff's race and/or without probable cause.

(Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ¶ 36.) Based on those allegations, the Court understands that, in Count III of the second amended complaint, Plaintiff is pursuing the following § 1983 damages claims against Movants sued in their individual capacities: an excessive force claim, an unreasonable search claim, an unlawful seizure claim, and an equal protection claim. As a result of Defendant Officers' alleged conduct, Plaintiff states that he

has suffered assault; physical abuse; fear of police activity and possible criminal charges; embarrassment and humiliation due to the presence of police officers at his home with emergency lights; embarrassment and humiliation due to being accosted by armed police officers, handcuffed and searched in open view on the driveway of his own home; and mental and emotional distress.

(Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff seeks nominal, actual, and exemplary or punitive damages, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Defendant Officers deny liability.

By their summary judgment motion, Defendant Officers argue that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the §1983 claims in Count III either because the uncontroverted material facts do not establish that Movants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights or because Movants are entitled to qualified immunity. More specifically, Defendants contend Defendant Officers exercised appropriate force under the circumstances; they conducted an investigatory stop of Plaintiff, which was warranted under the circumstances; their warrantless search of Plaintiff was supported by exigent circumstances; and there is no evidence that Defendants engaged in racially discriminatory conduct during the incident.

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds genuine issues of material fact exist as to each § 1983 claim against each Defendant in Count III of the second amended complaint so as to preclude the entry of summary judgment in any Defendant's favor.

The record discloses the following undisputed facts. Plaintiff and his wife, Patricia Sanders, live in the City. (Id. ¶ 2 [Doc. 58-1].) During all relevant times, Defendant Officers were police officers with the City's Police Department and acted under color of law. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6; Defs.' Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶¶ 1, 2 [Doc. 77].) Plaintiff "and his wife are black or African American while Stephens and . . . Defendant Police Officers are white or Caucasian." (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 29.)

At about 10:30 p.m. on April 9, 2012, Stephens, who at the time worked for a company that repossessed personal property, went to Plaintiff's home in an attempt to locate a vehicle. (Defs.' Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶¶ 3, 5.) Plaintiff learned that Stephens was on his property after dark when Plaintiff's wife told him that she had encountered Stephens, that Stephens had refused to leave, and that she was frightened. (Pl.'s Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶¶ 13.1, 13.2 [Doc. 81].) Plaintiff ordered Stephens to get off his property. (Id. ¶ 13.4.) When Stephens refused, Plaintiff took a revolver from the glove box of his car and, when Stephens saw it, Stephens walked up the driveway away from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's home. (Id. ¶¶ 13.7, 13.8, 13.9.) Plaintiff then returned to the garage, put the revolver down, and went back to the driveway unarmed to wait for the police. (Id.¶ 13.12.) Plaintiff had a valid concealed carry permit for the gun. (Id. ¶ 13.13.)

After seeing the gun, Stephens called 911 and spoke with a dispatcher for the City Police Department ("Dispatcher"). (Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22.) In reporting the incident, Stephens told the Dispatcher in part that Plaintiff had been "obnoxious" during their exchange. (Pl.'s Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 13.6.) No other 911 call was made to the Dispatcher during or regarding the April 9, 2012, incident at Plaintiff's home.

Several City police officers, including Defendant Officers, arrived at Plaintiff's home in response to the radio report of a "man with a gun" there. (Pl.'s Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 27; Defs.' Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶¶ 3, 4.) Prior to their arrival at Plaintiff's home, the responding police officers knew that there was a dispute between a repossession agent and a homeowner at the homeowner's residence. (Pl's Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 27.1.) The Dispatcher advised the responding police officers that the man with the gun was possibly "Marlon Sanders," a black male, wearing an orange t-shirt, and holding a small revolver. (Defs.'Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 6.) The Dispatcher also told the responding police officers that the man with the gun was "moving towards the garage" and Stephens, who the Dispatcher referred to as the victim, was "out in the street next to his truck." (Id. ¶ 7.) Then, the Dispatcher advised the responding police officers that the man had moved back out of the garage and had a black jacket on; and there might be "a female subject" inside the residence. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.)

Officer Stewart arrived first, identified the man standing in the driveway of the residence, drew his service revolver, ordered Plaintiff to show his hands, and loudly asked him if he had a gun. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff responded that he did, tried to explain that he had put it down, and raised his hands above his head. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 16.) Officers Wegman and Starck arrived and approached Plaintiff while Stewart was "covering" Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 17.) Officers Wegman and Starck went behind Plaintiff to handcuff him; Officer Wegman placed a handcuff on Plaintiff's right wrist and, as Officer Wegman was preparing to cuff Plaintiff's left wrist, Plaintiff's left wrist moved away from Officer Wegman. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 20; Pl.'s Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 13.20) Officer Starck told Plaintiff not to move and placed his taser on the back of Plaintiff's neck. (Defs.' Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶¶ 21, 22.) Plaintiff complied with Officer Starck's order not to move, was placed in handcuffs, and Officer Starck removed the taser from Plaintiff's neck. (Id.¶ 23.)

When Sergeant Fink arrived, he first spoke with Stephens who said he was going to press charges against Plaintiff for flourishing a weapon. (Pl.'s Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶¶ 20.3, 20.4.) Plaintiff called out to Sergeant Fink, who went to speak with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 20.6.) Sergeant Fink told Plaintiff he would not be arrested, but Sergeant Fink wanted to see the gun. (Id. ¶ 20.7.) Plaintiff reported where he had placed his revolver, and one of the police officers took it and removed the ammunition. (Defs.' Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 31.)

At some point, Defendant Officers understood that Stephens was attempting to repossess a Pontiac Grand Prix, that the vehicle was not in Plaintiff's driveway, and that Stephens wanted to see if it was in Plaintiff's garage. (Pl.'s Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 27.2.)

When responding to the "man with a gun" call for police service, the police officers did not use any racially offensive language to or about Plaintiff or Plaintiff's wife. (Defs.' Statem. Uncontr. Mat. Facts ¶ 26.)

Defendant Stewart: Officer Stewart averred that he was the first officer to arrive on the scene; he saw Plaintiff standing in his driveway; he drew his service revolver and "held it at the high ready position"; he approached Plaintiff and loudly asked Plaintiff if he had a gun; and, after Plaintiff responded that he did and Officer Stewart ordered Plaintiff to show his hands, Plaintiff raised his...