Sheffler v. Lee, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-373-CRS
| Decision Date | 07 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-373-CRS |
| Parties | TROY K. SHEFFLER PLAINTIFF v. ALEX LEE, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the court on motion of defendant Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government ("Metro") for judgment on the pleadings as to the claims against it, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
In considering a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, "all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment." Southern Ohio Bank v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 479 F.2d 478, 480 (6th Cir. 1973). Although the court's decision rests primarily upon the allegations of the complaint, "matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint may also be taken into account. Amin v. Oberlin College, 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001), quoting Nieman v. NLO, Inc., 108 F.3d 1546, 1554 (6th Cir. 1997). But the court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences." Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999). To withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings herein, a sufficient claim will "contain direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements under some viable legal theory." Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, 508 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2007).
This action arose from an incident which occurred on May 17, 2013 initially in the lobby of the Galt House Hotel in Louisville. The encounter continued on the street outside the hotel, and ultimately resulted in the transportation of the plaintiff, Troy K. Sheffler, by ambulance for evaluation and possible treatment at a local hospital.
Sheffler's First Amended Complaint (DN 35) alleges, in part, the following facts:
Sheffler, a resident of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, was staying at the Galt House Hotel on May 17, 2013. On that evening, after patronizing 4th Street Live! venues with a friend, Sheffler headed to the Galt House intending to return to his hotel room. At approximately 1:00 a.m., Sheffler entered the lobby and asked for directions to room 1005. He was told by security officer Jordan Keister that the room was in the tower across the street. Keister followed Sheffler as he headed toward his room. As this disturbed Sheffler, he stated to Keister that he wanted to speak to Keister's supervisor about being followed and whether this was hotel policy. The two men returned to the front desk lobby at approximately 1:06 a.m. and Sheffler waited while Keister contacted a supervisor.
Louisville Metro Police Officer Alex Lee was in the vicinity of Sheffler near the concierge desk. He inquired why Sheffler had returned to the lobby and asked to see Sheffler's identification. Lee refused to produce his identification and stated that his complaint wasbetween himself and the hotel staff. Lee stated that if Sheffler refused to produce his identification he would take him to jail.
At approximately 1:08 a.m. hotel supervisor Tim Howard arrived and spoke with Sheffler. Lee interrupted the conversation between Howard and Sheffler and again stated that if Sheffler did not cooperate and produce identification he would be arrested.
At approximately 1:12 a.m. Sheffler asked Lee if he was being detained, and Lee affirmed that he was not free to leave. Sheffler then called 911 from his cell phone and requested that someone be sent to mediate the situation, as he was being illegally detained by a Louisville Police Officer. Sheffler read Lee's badge number to the dispatcher. Although Sheffler requested that a supervisor be sent so that he could file a complaint against Lee, Lee spoke over his radio to a supervisor and canceled the call.
Sheffler then proceeded out the front door of the hotel where he was surrounded by Lee and other hotel security officers. He was informed that he was still on private property to which Sheffler responded that he would walk a little further down the sidewalk. Lee again asked Sheffler to produce identification and told him he would be arrested on a charge of Alcohol Intoxication if he did not cooperate. Lee then assaulted him, threw him against a car, and handcuffed him. Sheffler was then placed in the back of a squad car and deprived of his wallet and anxiety medication.
Sheffler informed Lee that he suffered from panic disorder and that he needed to have his medication returned to him. Lee refused. Lee turned on the surveillance camera in the squad car and gave a false narrative of the incident to which Sheffler objected. At 1:27 a.m. Sheffler suffered a panic attack and asked to be taken to the hospital. Lee responded that he would begoing to the hospital, and at 1:29 a.m. informed dispatch that Sheffler was complaining of a panic and/or heart attack.
At 1:35 a.m. Emergency Medical Service ambulance arrived. Sheffler complained that his arms were going numb, he was having a panic attack, and felt that he might be having a heart attack. Paramedic Michael A. Carroll stated that Sheffler was hyperventilating and needed to slow down his breathing. Lee told Carroll that Sheffler had previously been belligerent and combative. Carroll told Lee that Sheffler was not having a panic attack. Paramedic Stephanie M. Albertson then asked Sheffler for identification and told him that the hospital would not treat him unless he cooperated and provided information concerning his identity. Sheffler continued to refuse to provide the information. He was allowed out of the squad car at 1:44 a.m. Sheffler was transported to the hospital by ambulance and was admitted to the emergency room at 2:05 a.m.
Lee demanded that Sheffler provide a urine sample. Sheffler refused. Lee told Sheffler that he would be catheterized to obtain the sample if he did not give them one. Sheffler continued to refuse. At 2:15 a.m. Sheffler was placed on a security hold, and at approximately 3:00 a.m. Sheffler was released from the security hold and discharged by the emergency room physician, Dr. Raymond Orthober. At 3:22 a.m. Sheffler signed "under protest" the discharge instructions indicating that he had been evaluated for "Acute Alcohol Intoxication." At 3:30 a.m. Sheffler urinated in his pants, was given clean socks, and was transported to jail by Lee under charges of Disorderly Conduct and Alcohol Intoxication. Sheffler was released from jail on the evening if May 18, 2013. Sheffler was denied his anxiety medication from the point of his arrest until his release from jail, despite Sheffler's repeated demands for it.
Sheffler was prosecuted and was ultimately acquitted of the charges.
Sheffler filed suit against:
(1) Lee, indicating that he is employed by the City of Louisville, Kentucky, as a Louisville Metro Police Officer and is employed by Frederick Asset Protection LLC. The Amended Complaint states that "Lee is sued in his individual capacity for actions under color of law as a Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Police Officer." (DN 35, ¶ 8).
(2) Carroll, indicating that he is employed by the City of Louisville as a Louisville/Jefferson County EMT. The Amended Complaint states that "Carroll is sued in his individual capacity for actions under color of law as a Louisville/ Jefferson County EMT." (DN 35, ¶ 13).
(3) Frederick Asset Protection, Louisville, Kentucky. The Amended Complaint states that "Frederick Asset Protection shall answer to claims made in [sic] the acts [sic] their employee and Defendant Alex Lee per respondeat superior." (DN 35, ¶ 11).
(4) Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government. The Amended Complaint states that "Louisville Metro shall answer to claims made in [sic] the acts [sic] their employees and Defendants Alex Lee and Michael Carroll per respondeat superior. (DN 35, ¶ 16). The Amended Complaint further alleges that ." (DN 35, ¶ 17).
The essential premise of Sheffler's case is that Lee and Carroll violated his constitutional rights by assaulting him, detaining him, arresting him, and prosecuting him on trumped-up charges. Sheffler claims that he was within his rights to refuse to provide personal identification, and that the wrongful treatment he received was in retaliation for his refusal to cooperate with Lee's demands that Sheffler identify himself.
Sheffler asserts nine claims in his Amended Complaint:
(1) Common law battery against Lee, Carroll, and Metro.
(2) Common law false imprisonment against Lee and Metro.
(3) Common law malicious prosecution against Lee and Metro.
(4) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of I and XIV Amendment rights against Lee.
(5) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of IV and XIV Amendment rights against Lee.
(6) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of XIV Amendment rights against Lee and Carroll.
(7) Violation of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA") against Metro.
(8) Violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA") against Metro.
(9) "Monell Claim" against Metro.
To continue reading
Request your trial