Shaffer v. Reynhout
| Decision Date | 05 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-cv-0883 |
| Parties | ALONZO SHAFFER, Plaintiff, v. BRENT D. REYNHOUT and BRYAN L. JOLLIFFE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
This is a civil rights action brought pro se by a former inmate at the Kalamazoo County Jail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He alleges that Kalamazoo County Deputy Sheriffs Brent D. Reyhnout and Bryan L. Jolliffe used excessive force against him on August 13, 2013, after he had been assaulted by a fellow inmate, William Butterworth. Plaintiff also alleges that the deputies were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs resulting from injuries sustained during the incident. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 24).1
The matter is now before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 96). Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to each claim. (Brief, ECF No. 97). Plaintiff has responded in various filings. (ECF No. 104, 106, 113, 114, 132, and 147). For the reasons stated herein, I recommend that the Court grant the motion for summary judgment.
Also before the Court are plaintiff's third motion to amend his complaint to add the State of Michigan as a defendant (ECF No. 113); his motion to hold the State of Michigan and Kalamazoo County liable for failure to train (ECF No. 138); his motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 143); his motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 159); his fourth motion to amend his complaint in which he seeks to add some forty additional defendants, including the undersigned judicial officer (ECF No. 166). Defendants have responded to these motions. (See ECF No. 115, 144, 160, and 167). For the reasons set forth herein, I recommend that the Court deny each of these motions.2
This case has involved protracted litigation. More than forty motions have been filed, including four motions by plaintiff to amend his complaint. Plaintiff also attempted, unsuccessfully, to take an interlocutory appeal to the Sixth Circuit. (See Nov. 16, 2017, Order, No. 17-2231, found in this docket at ECF No. 90). Plaintiff recently attempted to file a notice of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. (See Aug. 29, 2018, Order Rejecting Pleading, ECF No. 176).
The case began on July 12, 2016, when plaintiff filed a complaint naming only the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff claimed that his civil rights had been violated by the Sheriff's Department due to the actions of two sheriff deputies who allegedly used excessive force in breaking up an altercation between plaintiff and another inmate at the Kalamazoo County Jail. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). The Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3).
On August 16, 2016, the Sheriff's Department filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff responded on September 15, 2016, attaching copies of investigative reports regarding the incident. (ECF No. 8, 8-1). He filed an "Addendum/Supplement to Complaint" on September 28, 2016. (ECF No. 12). He alleged, again, that Deputy Jolliffe violated his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force in breaking up an altercation between plaintiff and the other inmate. (ECF No. 12, PageID.43-44).
On September 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 14). The proposed amended complaint named Kalamazoo County and the countyadministrator as defendants instead of the Kalamazoo Sheriff's Department. (ECF No. 14-1, PageID.49).
On October 11, 2016, I conducted a hearing on the Sheriff Department's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. (Minutes, ECF No. 17). In a report and recommendation filed the next day, I recommended that the Court grant the Sheriff Department's motion to dismiss, and that the Court deny plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint as futile. (ECF No. 18).
On November 4, 2016, the Court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the claim against the Sheriff's Department, but allowed plaintiff to further amend his complaint to give him an opportunity to provide more specificity to his claim against the county. (Order, ECF No. 23, PageID.95). With respect to the latter, the Court noted:
Plaintiff can and should recite his claims in a more coherent, amended complaint. . . . To facilitate this, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state a policy and practice claim against Kalamazoo County, an excessive force and race discrimination claim against Officer Jolliffe, and any other claim Plaintiff believes he has against any defendants.
(Id. at 4, PageID.96).
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on November 28, 2016. (ECF No. 24). The amended complaint includes three counts: in Count I, plaintiff claims that Deputy Bryan Jolliffe violated his Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force, including the use of a "choke hold," and that the deputy was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs; in Count II, plaintiff raises excessive force and deliberate indifference claims against Deputy Brent Reynhout for his participation in the sameincident; and in Count III, plaintiff contends that Kalamazoo County is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees (Deputies Jolliffe and Reynhout), and he asserts that the County is directly liable due to "its policies, practices, and customs, which [led] to this complaint of violation." (ECF No. 24, PageID.98-99).
On December 12, 2016, defendant Kalamazoo County moved to dismiss Count III of the amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff filed a timely response on January 4, 2017 (ECF No. 28), and Kalamazoo County filed a reply on January 9, 2017. (ECF No. 31). On January 17, 2017, defendants Jolliffe and Reynhout filed a motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff timely responded on January 31, 2017 (ECF No. 34), and defendants Jolliffe and Reynhout replied on February 3, 2017. (ECF No. 35). On April 21, 2017, I conducted a hearing on both motions to dismiss. (Minutes, ECF No. 56).
On September 12, 2017, I recommended that the Court grant Kalamazoo County's motion to dismiss, and to deny the individual defendants' motion. (ECF No. 70). In that recommendation, I advised plaintiff of his burden of demonstrating that Deputies Reynhout and Jolliffe are not entitled to qualified immunity. (See ECF No. 70, PageID.282, n.2). The Court adopted the report and recommendation on September 26, 2017, dismissing Kalamazoo County from the case. (ECF No. 74).
Defendants Reynhout and Joliffe filed their pending motion for summary judgment on December 7, 2017. (ECF No. 96). Plaintiff filed the first of six responses to the summary judgment motion on January 4, 2108 (ECF No. 104); his otherarguments against defendants' motion for summary judgment are included in various motions and objections (see ECF No. 106, 113, 114, 132, and 147).
Plaintiff also moved to compel discovery in the form of a copy of a video of the August 13, 2013, incident, as well as the production of all witnesses to the incident. (ECF No. 94). Defendants responded, noting, among other things, that plaintiff had failed to serve any discovery requests and that the discovery deadline had passed as of June 22, 2017. (ECF No. 99). In a December 15, 2017, hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel, I explained to plaintiff the requirement of serving discovery requests, and I extended, sua sponte, plaintiff's discovery deadline to January 16, 2018, as well as his deadline for responding to defendants' summary judgment motion to March 19, 2018. (Minutes, ECF No. 102; Order, ECF No. 103).
Plaintiff continued to seek discovery through the Court (ECF No. 104, 108, 114, and 119), which the Court indulgently treated as motions to compel discovery. (See Order, ECF No. 125). During an April 11, 2018, hearing on these motions, counsel for defendants advised the Court that Kalamazoo County could not produce a video of the August 13, 2013, incident, as it did not exist. Counsel for defendants also stated during this hearing that he had already provided plaintiff with requested contact information concerning individuals who may have witnessed the incident. Plaintiff disputed both assertions. Accordingly, I scheduled an evidentiary hearing and ordered defendants to produce a witness with personal knowledge of whether a video recording of the incident ever existed. (Order, ECF No. 125, PageID.553). I also ordered defendants to produce evidence of whether they provided plaintiff withcontact information concerning the potential witnesses to the incident. (Id.).
The evidentiary hearing was held on May 2, 2018 (Minutes, ECF No. 133), at which Captain Amy Price of the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department testified to the effect that no video of the August 13, 2013, incident ever existed. (Order, ECF No. 134, PageID.597). She explained, in essence, that the video cameras in the area of the incident were not connected to any video recording equipment. I found her testimony to be credible.
Prior to the May 2, 2018, hearing, defense counsel sent plaintiff the names and addresses of persons who may have witnessed the August 13, 2013, incident. (See ECF No. 130, PageID.589). During the hearing, defense counsel acknowledged that he had mistakenly failed to provide that information previously. He advised the Court that defendants did not object to an extension of the discovery deadline to allow plaintiff an opportunity to depose these witnesses. (See May 2, 2018, Order, ECF No. 134, PageID.597). Accordingly, I reopened discovery to allow plaintiff to take up to six depositions, each not to exceed two hours, and I permitted plaintiff to file a supplemental response to the motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial