Smith v. City of Sturgis
| Decision Date | 23 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:11-CV-390 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
| Parties | DONNETTA SMITH, CHARLES SMITH, and LOGAN SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF STURGIS, MARK STONEBURNER, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the City of Sturgis, and DAMON KNAPP, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the City of Sturgis, Defendants. |
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
Plaintiffs, Donnetta Smith, Charles Smith, and Logan Smith (collectively the Smiths), have sued Defendants, the City of Sturgis (City) and City of Sturgis Police Officers Mark Stoneburner and Damon Knapp, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. In addition, Donnetta and Charles Smith allege state-law claims for assault and battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to all claims. The Smiths move for summary judgment on: (1) their second unlawful entry claim against Officer Stoneburner based on Officer Stoneburner's act of entering the Smiths' home to grab Charles; (2) Charles' and Donnetta's excessive force claims against Officer Stoneburner; and (3) Charles' and Donnetta's state-law claims against Officer Stoneburner for assault and battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment. Althoughthe Smiths have requested oral argument, the Court concludes that the parties have adequately briefed the issues and oral argument will not further assist the Court.
For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' motion. The Court will grant The Smiths' motion with regard to the second unlawful entry claim and deny it with regard to all other claims.
The following facts are largely undisputed. Disputed facts, where material, will be discussed as they pertain to the Court's analysis of the claims.
On May 25, 2010, Officers Stoneburner and Knapp were riding on patrol together when they received a call from St. Joseph County Central Dispatch asking them to respond to a retail fraud complaint from the Walgreen's store in Sturgis, Michigan. The dispatcher reported that the suspect, later identified as Charles Smith, was still present at the store and was being cooperative.
When the officers arrived at the Walgreen's store, Charles was gone. The store manager informed the officers that he had observed Charles come into the store, walk to the cell phone products section, and plug his cell phone into various charging adapters to see if they fit his phone. The manager said that Charles then got a grocery cart, put a charging adapter package in the cart, and proceeded to walk around the store. A short time later, a clerk saw Charles leaving the store without the package and notified the manager, who stopped Charles and asked him about the phone charger. Charles showed the manager where he had left the cell phone charger package and picked it up. The manager grabbed the package from Charles and noticed that the package had been opened and the end of the adapter had been cut off. Charles identified himself and offered to allow the manager to search him. The manager declined, however, because he wanted to wait for the police to arrive. Charles initially agreed to wait for the police but left before they arrived. The managertold the officers that Charles walked to a nearby house located at 706 S. Orange Street, which was visible from the store.
After completing their investigation at Walgreen's, Officers Stoneburner and Knapp proceeded to 706 S. Orange Street, where Charles resided with his mother, Donnetta, and brother, Logan, to do a "knock and talk." When the officers arrived, Logan was in the front yard, and he approached the patrol car. While still in the car, Officer Stoneburner asked Logan if he knew Charles Smith and whether Charles Smith lived there. Logan responded that Charles was his brother, but he did not know whether Charles was home. Logan asked Officer Stoneburner whether he should get Charles, but Officer Stoneburner responded that Logan need not bother and that he would get Charles himself.
The officers exited their patrol car and followed Logan as he walked to the east deck of the house. Officer Stoneburner followed Logan into the house, while officer Knapp remained outside on the deck. Logan went upstairs to Charles' room and returned with Charles less than a minute later.1 Officer Stoneburner asked Charles, who was dressed only in shorts, to step onto the deck to talk about what happened at Walgreen's. Charles agreed to the request, and he and Officer Stoneburner stepped outside onto the deck. Logan and Donnetta, who had come out of her bedroom, followed them outside shortly thereafter.
On the deck, Officer Stoneburner asked Charles about the Walgreen's incident, and Charles denied cutting the phone charger or taking anything from the store. Officer Stoneburner then asked Charles if he could search Charles, and Charles consented to the request. The pat-down search revealed nothing on Charles' person other than a lighter. Officer Stoneburner then asked Charlesif he could look in Charles' bedroom. Charles mumbled something inaudibly in response to Officer Stoneburner's request and started walking toward the door. Officer Stoneburner followed Charles, asking him whether he had anything in his room the officers should know about. Charles opened the door and walked inside the house, and as Officer Stoneburner started to enter, Charles suddenly attempted to close the door to prevent Officer Stoneburner from entering. Officer Stoneburner used his hand to hold the door open, reached inside the house, grabbed Charles by the wrist, and told him to "stop." As Officer Stoneburner was reaching for Charles, Donnetta attempted to step in front of Officer Stoneburner as she yelled at Officer Stoneburner not to touch her son. As a result, Officer Stoneburner bumped Donnetta, causing her to hit the side of the house.
Officer Stoneburner pulled Charles out onto the deck and bent him over the railing, while Donnetta continued screaming at Officer Stoneburner not to grab her son. Although Charles initially did not resist, he began saying that he was "not going." At that point, Officer Knapp told Charles that he was under arrest. Charles stiffened his body and resisted the officers' attempts to place his hands behind his back. Officers Stoneburner and Knapp each grabbed one of Charles' arms and bent Charles over the railing, and pressed his head against the garage, which was next to the railing, as they handcuffed Charles. Officer Stoneburner then led Charles to the patrol car. Charles later complained to Officer Stoneburner that the handcuffs were too tight.
Subsequently, Officer Stoneburner charged Charles with the misdemeanor offense of third degree retail fraud. Charles later pled guilty to disturbing the peace.
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Material facts are facts which are defined by substantive law and are necessary to apply the law. Anderson v. LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return judgment for the non-moving party. Id.
The court must draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, but may grant summary judgment when "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Agristor Fin. Corp. v. Van Sickle, 967 F.2d 233, 236 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986)).
Because the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, "the court must evaluate each motion on its own merits and view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1994).
The Smiths' complaint contains three counts. The first, Count I, is captioned "42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Unconstitutional Search, Seizure, Arrest and Excessive Force - Individual Defendant Officers." Count II alleges claims against the City under § 19832 for failure to train as a result of an unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice. Finally, Count III alleges state-law claims against Officers Stoneburner and Knapp.
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants noted that because the Smiths lumped all of their federal constitutional claims into a single count, Defendants could not determine the precise nature of the Smiths' claims. Accordingly, Defendants covered the universe of potential Fourth Amendment claims in their motion. In their response, however, the Smiths narrowed the scope of their claims and clarified the precise claims at issue. First, the Smiths assert two claims against Officer Stoneburner for unlawful entry into their home in violation of the FourthAmendment - the first based on the initial entry when Officer Stoneburner followed Logan into the house; and the second based on Officer Stoneburner's act of reaching into the house to grab Charles as Charles attempted to close the door. Second, Charles asserts an excessive force claim against Officers Stoneburner and Knapp for the force they used in effecting the arrest. Finally, Donnetta asserts an excessive force claim against Officer Stoneburner. The Smiths have also clarified that they do not oppose dismissal of their claim against Officer Knapp for failing to intervene to stop Officer Stoneburner's unlawful entries, nor do they oppose the dismissal of their claim against the City. In addition, the Smiths state that Charles is not alleging a claim for unlawful arrest, as they concede that the officers had probable cause to arrest Charles. Therefore, the Court will limit its Fourth Amendment analysis to the two unlawful entry and two excessive force claims.
To continue reading
Request your trial