Skiles v. Rebollar
| Docket Number | 1:22-cv-01073-JMS-MKK |
| Decision Date | 21 November 2023 |
| Parties | ROY ELIJAH SKILES, Plaintiff, v. ELIAS REBOLLAR, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Pro se Plaintiff Roy Elijah Skiles filed this lawsuit on May 24, 2022, asserting various claims under federal and state law for events arising from a June 28, 2020 encounter he had with Defendant Elias Rebollar, a then Westfield Police Department ("WPD") police officer, that resulted in a mental-health detention and other ensuing legal circumstances. Officer Rebollar has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims. [Filing No. 58.] The Motion is now ripe for the Court's consideration.
Mr Skiles filed this lawsuit on May 24, 2022, setting forth claims for various constitutional violations including the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, violation of 34 U.S.C § 12601;[1] and state law violations under Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3.[2] [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Mr. Skiles initially named four Defendants, including Hamilton County, WPD, WPD's Internal Affairs Department, and Officer Rebollar. [Filing No. 1; see also Filing No. 30 at 4.] WPD and WPD's Internal Affairs Department filed a Motion to Dismiss based on immunity, [Filing No. 20], which the Court granted in a September 12, 2022 Order. [Filing No. 30.]
On October 6, 2022, Mr. Skiles filed an Amended Complaint. [See Filing No. 32.] The Court struck the Amended Complaint in an October 18, 2022 Order for failure to follow the procedures outlined in the Court's Amended Scheduling Order. [Filing No. 33 at 2.] The Court's October 18, 2022 Order explained that if Mr. Skiles "wish[ed] to file an Amended Complaint, he must file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint by November 14, 2022, as explained in the Amended Scheduling Order." [Filing No. 33 at 2 (citing Filing No. 29 at 2-3).] The Court further explained that "[a]ny such motion must include the proposed amended complaint as an attachment, explain how the proposed amended complaint differs from the original complaint, and explain why an amendment is needed." [Filing No. 33 at 2.] The Court also reminded Mr. Skiles that "he must comply with all Court Orders, including the Amended Scheduling Order." [Filing No. 33 at 2.]
Despite being advised that he could file another Amended Complaint if done properly, Mr. Skiles did not file an Amended Complaint by the November 14, 2022 deadline or thereafter.
On February 21, 2023, Defendant Hamilton County was dismissed by stipulation, [Filing No. 46], leaving Officer Rebollar as the sole Defendant. Officer Rebollar has moved for summary judgment on all of Mr. Skiles' claims. [Filing No. 58.]
A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). On summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). "'Summary judgment is not a time to be coy.'" King v. Ford Motor Co., 872 F.3d 833, 840 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Sommerfield v. City of Chicago, 863 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2017)). Rather, at the summary judgment stage, "[t]he parties are required to put their evidentiary cards on the table." Sommerfield, 863 F.3d at 649.
The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011).
"[S]peculation may not be used to manufacture a genuine issue of fact." Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., 3 F.4th 927, 934 (7th Cir. 2021). Rather, each fact asserted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be supported by "a citation to a discovery response, a deposition, an affidavit, or other admissible evidence." S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(e). And each "citation must refer to a page or paragraph number or otherwise similarly specify where the relevant information can be found in the supporting evidence." Id. The Court need only consider the cited materials and need not "scour the record" for evidence that is potentially relevant. Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 572-73 (7th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(h). Where a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, the Court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the summary judgment motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2).
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2009). In other words, while there may be facts that are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate if those facts are not outcome determinative. Harper v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 433 F.3d 521, 525 (7th Cir. 2005). Fact disputes that are irrelevant to the legal question will not be considered. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
When the evidence includes a videotape of the relevant events, the Court does not adopt the non-moving party's version of the events when that version is blatantly contradicted by the videotape. Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379-80 (2007)).
At the outset, the Court notes that Mr. Skiles testified to the circumstances regarding the events that follow, but parts of his testimony are blatantly contradicted by the officers' body worn camera footage ("Bodycam Footage"). Accordingly, the Court relies on the Bodycam Footage. See Williams, 809 F.3d at 942; Scott, 550 U.S. at 379-80.
Moreover, the Court notes that Mr. Skiles failed to comply with the rules for summary judgment filings by not citing to any admissible evidence to support his assertions as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules. [See Filing No. 76; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c); S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(e).] Compliance with the rules is required even for Pro se litigants. See McCarthy v. Perdue, 768 Fed.Appx. 550, 552 (7th Cir. 2019) () (emphasis added); Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). (Pro se litigants "are not excused from compliance with procedural rules."). It is well settled that the Court may strictly enforce summary judgment rules. McCurry v Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2019); McCarthy, 768 Fed.Appx. at 552.
Mr. Skiles was explicitly advised of his obligations with respect to his summary judgment response. [See Filing No. 67.] Officer Rebollar provided the notice required by Local Rule 56-1(k) when a party seeks summary judgment against a Pro se litigant, which contains verbatim text of both Federal Rule of Civil Procedural 56 and Local Rule 56-1. [Filing No. 67 at 2-5.] Still, Mr. Skiles did not comply. [See generally Filing No. 76.]
Pursuant to the standard detailed above and the circumstances the Court has noted, the Court finds the following to be the undisputed facts, supported by admissible evidence in the record.
On June 28, 2020, Melody Skiles, Mr. Skiles' then wife, called 911 and reported that she was concerned for Mr. Skiles and explained that she had recently filed for divorce and that Mr. Skiles was "pulling his gun out and tapping it on the table and tapping it on his head" and also cocking the gun. [Filing No. 58-6; 911 Call at 00:01-00:29; 911 Call at 03:11 .][3] Mrs. Skiles informed the 911 operator that she and their two minor daughters were also home.
WPD officers, including Officer Rebollar, were dispatched to the Skiles' home. [Filing No. 58-2 at 1; see also Filing No. 58-6.] The 911 operator remained on the phone with Mrs. Skiles until the officers arrived at the house. Once the officers arrived, they told dispatch to instruct Mrs. Skiles to exit the house with her daughters. Once Mrs. Skiles and her daughters were outside, Officer Rebollar, followed by two more officers, went inside the house. [Rebollar Bodycam Footage at 3:36; Mitchell Bodycam Footage at 5:03 5:25; Filing No. 58-2 at 2.]
Mr Skiles was sitting on the couch in the living room immediately to the right upon entry to the house. [Rebollar Bodycam Footage at 3:38.] Officer Rebollar quickly located Mr. Skiles, and stated, "hey, what's up man?" [Rebollar Bodycam Footage at 3:38.] Mr. Skiles stated that he was "watching TV." [Rebollar Bodycam Footage at 3:41.] Officer Rebollar then asked to see Mr. Skiles' hands and instructed him not to touch anything. [Rebollar Bodycam Footage at 3:41; Filing No. 58-2 at 2.] Mr. Skiles immediately raised both hands in the air, but then immediately...
To continue reading
Request your trial