Scheuerman v. City of Huntsville, al, Civil Action No. CV-05-S-843-NE.

• Citation: 499 F.Supp.2d 1205
• Decision Date: 23 July 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. CV-05-S-843-NE.
• Parties: Rickey Lee SCHEUERMAN, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, et al., Defendant.
• Court: United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama

499 F.Supp.2d 1205

Rickey Lee SCHEUERMAN, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, et al., Defendant.

Civil Action No. CV-05-S-843-NE.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

July 23, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Donald R. James, Jr., Joseph D. Jackson, Jr., William J. Baxley, Baxley Dillard Dauphin & McKnight, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

C. Gregory Burgess, Michael L. Fees, Fees & Burgess PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SMITH, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Rickey Lee Scheuerman, brought suit against the City of Huntsville, Alabama, and Jeffrey Weaber, a bank fraud investigator employed by that city's police department, for serious and permanent internal injuries inflicted during a shooting incident that occurred while Investigator Weaber was off-duty, and, while plaintiff was violating no law. Plaintiff alleges constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and supplemental state-law claims of assault and battery, unlawful detention, and negligence under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The action now is before the court on each defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. nos. 34, 35).

When summary judgment motions are filed, the pertinent part of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).¹

In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.

The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman v. Al Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir.1995)); see also United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir.1991) (en banc).

Defendant Jeffrey Weaber has asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as an alternative ground for summary judgment. When assessing such a defense, the district court must "answer the legal question of whether the defendant [is] entitled to qualified immunity under [the plaintiff's] version of the facts." Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d 1395, 1397 (11th Cir.1998) (citing Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1486 & n. 3 (11th Cir.1996)).

Indeed, we approach the facts from the plaintiff's perspective because "[t]he issues ... concern `not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law.'" Sheth [v. Webster], 145 F.3d [1231,] 1236 [(11th Cir.1998)] (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 311, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2155, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995)). As this Court has repeatedly stressed, the "facts, as accepted at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings, may not be the actual facts of the case." Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 925 n. 3 (11th Cir.2000). Nevertheless, for summary judgment purposes, our analysis must begin with a description of the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002).

Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1190 (11th Cir.2002); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) ("A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider ... this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officers' conduct violated a constitutional right?") (emphasis supplied).

PART ONE

Summary of Relevant Facts

Rickey Lee Scheuerman was driving south on Bailey Cove Road, en route to his mother's home, around 2:30 p.m. on April 23, 2003, a Wednesday afternoon.² At the same time, defendant Jeffrey Weaber also was traveling south on Bailey Cove Road in a red, Pontiac Grand Prix automobile.³ That vehicle was "unmarked," in the sense that nothing about its external appearance indicated that it was either owned by, or driven by, an officer of the Huntsville Police Department. Plaintiff first noticed the red car at the intersection of Bailey Cove Road and Four Mile Post Road (to the west) and Cecil Ashburn (to the east)⁴ He described his initial encounter as follows:

While I was stopped at that intersection is when I first noticed the red car coming speeding up behind me, [and it] caught my attention because I thought he was going to rear end me. He broke [sic] so hard that he nose dived where the front end goes down on a car.⁵

As plaintiff continued to drive south on Bailey Cove Road, passing Grissom High School on the left and the South Precinct of the Huntsville Police Department on the right, he noticed the red car tailgating him, so he turned right (west) onto Chatterson Road, a residential street, to allow the automobile to pass him.⁶

After turning off Bailey Cove Road, plaintiff pulled partially into either the first or second driveway on the right side of Chatterson Road at an approximately forty-five-degree angle.⁷ After doing so, plaintiff put his transmission into the reverse gear, for the purpose of backing out of the driveway. Only then did he notice that the red car still was behind him, and driving slowly towards his own automobile⁸ As a result, plaintiff could not backtrack out of the driveway following the same path he had entered; instead, he had to turn his steering wheel to the left, in order to maneuver his automobile (in reverse) around the red car.⁹ Meanwhile, Weaber exited his vehicle and walked to the rear driver's side panel of plaintiff's automobile.¹⁰

Plaintiff did not see Weaber exit his vehicle.¹¹ As a consequence, when plaintiff began to back out of the driveway, he ran over Weaber's left foot and struck his upper left leg.¹² Still unaware of either Weaber's proximity to his own automobile, or the fact that he had struck him, plaintiff shifted into drive.¹³

Plaintiff only became aware of the fact that Weaber had exited the red automobile and approached his own vehicle when he saw Weaber's hand, with a gun in it, come through his open driver's side window.¹⁴ Weaber was wearing a polo-style shirt with the words "City of Huntsville P.D." on his left chest,¹⁵ a badge clipped to the right side of his belt, and a gun in a holster on the left side of his body. Plaintiff heard one gunshot and felt pain in the area of his upper left chest¹⁶ Plaintiff further contends that Weaber then placed the handgun against his stomach and fired twice.¹⁷

Following the shots, plaintiff stepped hard on the gas pedal of his automobile and sped forward, heading west on Chatterson Road.¹⁸ (Plaintiff claims he heard a fourth shot fired, as he was leaving the scene, as evidenced by a powder burn on his lower lip and small scar on the left corner of his mouth.¹⁹ Only three shell casings were found at the scene, however, and only three rounds were missing from Weaber's gun.²⁰)

The shooting incident lasted between three and five seconds, during which time plaintiff never looked at or spoke to Weaber.²¹ Plaintiff's automobile was not moving, but completely stopped, when he was shot by Weaber.²²

Prior to exiting his automobile to confront plaintiff, Weaber did not make a radio call or use his police blue light.²³ Weaber failed to put his radio on his person before exiting his vehicle, allegedly because it had fallen from the passenger seat onto the passenger side floor board when he stopped on Chatterson.²⁴

After being shot, plaintiff sped off, going west on Chatterson Road, and pulled into the driveway of an alleged family friend's home at 904 Chatterson Road.²⁵ As plaintiff sped off, Weaber ran back to his automobile and radioed "10-34" to the dispatcher, a code that indicated he had been involved in a shooting incident.²⁶ The dispatcher requested Weaber's location.²⁷ Because Weaber did not know his location, he drove in reverse toward the Bailey Cove Road intersection until he was able to see a street sign.²⁸ Weaber then radioed to the dispatcher, "I'm off of Chatterson off of Bailey Cove."²⁹ Radio traffic then occurred as follows:

Investigator Weaber: Subject attempted to run me over. He's pulled away from me and I don't know where he's gone to. He has been 10-34 [i.e., shot].

Dispatcher: Lincoln 9, 10-4. Do you have a vehicle description?

Investigator Weaber: It was a maroon Mercury Sable. I have been involved in a pedestrian 10-50 [i.e., hit by vehicle]. He has run over my left leg and foot. I have no idea where he's gone to.³⁰

Weaber then drove quickly forward (i.e., west) on Chatterson Road, unknowingly passing plaintiff who was parked in the driveway of 904 Chatterson, on the left side of the road.³¹ Weaber continued west on Chatterson Road until he came to Farley Drive, where he looked left and right for plaintiff; but, not seeing him, Weaber turned left onto Farley Road.³² Weaber then turned left onto Cornelia Drive, took another left onto Bailey Cove Road, and then began traveling north on Bailey Cove Road.³³

Officer Ronnie Shumate was sitting in his personal automobile in a turn lane on Bailey Cove Road and heard about the shooting over his radio.³⁴ Officer Shumate saw Weaber and followed him on Chatterson Road.³⁵ Weaber drove slowly down Chatterson Road and ultimately found plaintiff in the driveway of 904 Chatterson Road.³⁶ Weaber radioed the dispatcher, "Okay, I've located him now."³⁷ When Weaber approached, pl...