Smith v. City of Jordan
| Decision Date | 25 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 1:19CV386 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | MARY SMITH and GEORGE SMITH, individually; and MARY SMITH, as administrator of the ESTATE OF MARCUS DEON SMITH, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GREENSBORO; GUILFORD COUNTY; Greensboro police officers JUSTIN PAYNE, ROBERT DUNCAN, MICHAEL MONTALVO, ALFRED LEWIS, CHRISTOPHER BRADSHAW, LEE ANDREWS, DOUGLAS STRADER, and JORDAN BAILEY; and Guilford EMS paramedics ASHLEY ABBOTT and DYLAN ALLING, Defendants. |
Marcus Deon Smith ("Smith") died after an encounter with eight City of Greensboro police officers ("the Officers") and two Guilford County EMS paramedics ("the Paramedics"). Smith's parents ("Plaintiffs") bring this action against the Officers, the Paramedics, and their respective employers ("Greensboro" and "Guilford County"), alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34; and state law claims for wrongful death and battery. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 68-104.) Six motions are before the Court. The Officers, the Paramedics, Greensboro, and Guilford County all move to dismiss the claims against them, (ECF Nos. 17; 20; 22; 25), while Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint and strike video evidence attached to certain Defendants' briefs, (ECF Nos. 35; 41).
For the reasons stated below, the Officers', Paramedics', and Greensboro's motions to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part; Guilford County's motion to dismiss will be granted in full; Plaintiffs' motion to strike will be denied (though the court declines to consider the video evidence at this time); and Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint will be denied as futile.
On the morning of September 8, 2018, just after midnight, Smith was "pacing back and forth" along North Church Street near downtown Greensboro. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 23-24.) Bipolar and schizophrenic, Smith was disposed to episodes of psychosis; delusions, paranoia, and hallucinations which impaired both his cognition and communication. (Id. ¶ 22.) According to the complaint, eight City of Greensboro police officers encountered Smith "in the throes of a mental health crisis"—he was "exasperated and frantic," "running around in circles," and "waiving his arms in the air." (Id. ¶¶ 23-24, 26.) Smith "begged the officers for help" and asked to be taken to the hospital. (Id. ¶ 24.) The Officers called an ambulance and asked Smith to sit in the back of one of their squad cars until it arrived. (Id. ¶ 28.) After a brief time alone in the car, however, Smith "began to panic and thrash around." (Id. ¶ 29.) He tried to open the car door and, finding it locked, "banged his hand against the window" in order to "get the [Officers'] attention." (Id. ¶ 30.)
Meanwhile, two paramedics from the Guilford County Emergency Medical Service arrived on the scene. (Id. ¶ 33.) While Smith was still in the car, the Officers described his condition to the Paramedics, and one officer—Officer Duncan—suggested restraining Smith with a "belt-like strap" called a "RIPP Hobble." Eventually, the Officers opened the car door. (Id. ¶ 35.) Without "kick[ing] or hitt[ing] or threaten[ing]" the Officers or Paramedics, Smith emerged from the car. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) Several of the Officers quickly "forced [Smith] down to the ground and then rolled [him] onto his stomach in the prone position." (Id. ¶ 37.) As the Officers held him down, Smith "cried out in pain." (Id. ¶¶ 38-39.) Officer Duncan handcuffed Smith's hands behind his back; then, Officer Payne grabbed Smith's ankles and pushed them backwards until his hands and feet were touching. (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.) Three Officers then used a RIPP Hobble to "hogtie" Smith—securing his hands to his feet behind his back, with his legs bent "well beyond a 90-degree angle." (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.) The hobble's binding was so tight that, lying on his stomach, Smith's shoulders and knees were "suspended above the ground." (Id. ¶ 42.)
The stress on Smith's chest constrained his breathing. (Id. ¶ 43.) "[W]heezing, moaning, groaning, [and] gasping for air," he quickly entered a state of "respiratory and physical distress." (See id. ¶¶ 44-45.) Four of the Officers were "right next to" Smith as he struggled to breathe, either holding him down or standing nearby. (Id. ¶ 47.) Likewise, both Paramedics were "standing next to" Smith as he lay there bound. (Id. ¶ 48.) None intervened. (Id. ¶¶ 47-48.) "[L]ess than half a minute" after his breathing became strained, Smith was fully "unable to breathe" and had become "unresponsive." (Id. ¶ 45.)
The Paramedics "waited longer than two minutes to begin any resuscitative efforts," despite being aware that Smith was "unconscious, unresponsive[,] and not breathing." (Id. ¶ 51.) They later placed Smith on a gurney and moved him inside of an ambulance, where their attempts to revive him failed. (Id. ¶¶ 50-51.) North Carolina's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner classified Smith's death as a homicide and listed several causes of death: "sudden cardiopulmonary arrest due to prone restraint; n-ethylpentalone, cocaine, and alcohol use; and hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease." (Id. ¶ 52.)
Smith's parents initiated this action for damages on April 10, 2019, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; Title II of the ADA; and state law claims for wrongful death and battery. (Id. ¶¶ 68-104.) In a set of four motions, all Defendants now move to dismiss the claims against them. (ECF Nos. 17; 20; 22; 25.) Plaintiffs, for their part, move to amend their complaint and strike video evidence attached to certain Defendants' briefing. (ECF Nos. 35; 41.) The Court will address each motion in turn.
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek dismissal based on the court's "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that relates to the court's power to hear a case and must be decided before a determination on the merits of the case. Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2005). A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) raises the question of "whether [the plaintiff] has a right to be in the district court at all and whether the court has the power to hear and dispose of [their] claim." Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012). The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, and thetrial court may "consider evidence by affidavit, depositions or live testimony without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, when evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the court should grant the motion "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) "challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint." Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). To survive dismissal, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In assessing a claim's plausibility, a court must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527, 539 (4th Cir. 2013). However, "mere conclusory and speculative allegations" are insufficient to withstand dismissal, Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013), and a court "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments," Vitol, 708 F.3d at 548 ).
Before considering the arguments for and against dismissal, the Court must first answer a threshold question: whether it is appropriate, at this early stage of the litigation, to consider video evidence of the events described in the complaint. In support of their motions todismiss, Greensboro and the Officers have submitted body-cam footage of the incident. (ECF No. 26-1.) Plaintiffs move to strike the footage and ask the Court to disregard all references to it in Defendants' briefing. (ECF No. 41.)
When a defendant challenges a claim under rule 12(b)(6), courts are ordinarily limited to considering the allegations set forth in the complaint. Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l, 780 F.3d 597, 606 (4th Cir. 2015). The purpose of a Rule 12 motion, after all, is to test the sufficiency of the pleadings, not to resolve disputes. See Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). However, there are two narrow exceptions to this general rule. First, courts can consider extrinsic evidence attached to a motion to dismiss if "it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint," so long as "the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity." Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc. v. Trigon Healthcare, Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). Second, courts may "take judicial notice of matters of public record." Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009).
Defendants argue that the video footage is "integral" to the complaint because it "depicts the entire interaction on 8 September 2018 from numerous perspectives." (ECF No. 51 at 8.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that the footage is comprehensive, and even state in their briefing that they "intend to rely on the body camera video at summary judgment and trial." (ECF No. 42 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial