Soderberg v. City of Dall., Case No. 1:16-cv-00045-EJL
| Decision Date | 02 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-cv-00045-EJL |
| Parties | JOHN LENARD SODERBERG, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MCCALL; DALLAS PALMER, JUSTIN WILLIAMS; ESTATE OF EUGENE PAUL DRABINSKI; EUGENE PAUL DRABINSKI; LARRY STOKES; DOES 1 - 25, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Before the Court in the above entitled matter is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 15.)1 The parties have filed responsive briefing and the Motion is ripe for the Court's consideration. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly,in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Motion shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument.
Plaintiff John Soderberg was a guest at the Shore Lodge hotel in McCall, Idaho when the incident that led to this suit took place. (Dkt. 3, 22.) On February 1, 2015, at or around 2:30 a.m., Mr. Soderberg was socializing with friends in his hotel room when the front desk called and asked him and his guests to quiet down. Sometime after receiving the phone call, Mr. Soderberg heard a knock at his hotel room door. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.6.) Mr. Soderberg answered the door, opening it about a foot. (Dkt. 22-2, Aff. Soderberg at ¶ 9.) When Mr. Soderberg opened the door he observed two individuals standing in the dimly lit hotel hallway. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.11.) The first individual was standing in the hallway immediately in front of his door and identified himself as a Shore Lodge Security Officer. (Dkt. 22-2, Aff. Soderberg at ¶ 8.) Mr. Soderberg observed a second individual standing, mostly out of view, behind the Shore Lodge Security Officer who, Mr. Soderberg states, was wearing dark clothing and did not speak or identify himself. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.11.) That second individual was Defendant Dallas Palmer, a police officer with the McCall CityPolice Department ("MPD"), who was wearing his full MPD uniform with his gun and badge visible.3 (Dkt. 15-3, Aff. Palmer ¶ 14.)
While Mr. Soderberg was speaking with the Shore Lodge Security Officer, Officer Palmer came to the forefront and "began barking commands at Mr. Soderberg." (Dkt. 22.) Officer Palmer demanded that Mr. Soderberg leave his room and step into the hallway to speak with him. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.12.) When Mr. Soderberg refused, Officer Palmer told him that "he smelled marijuana coming from the room and yelled at him to come out or he was going to be arrested." (Dkt. 22.) Again, Mr. Soderberg refused and when he tried to retreat into his hotel room, Officer Palmer placed his foot inside of the room and wedged it against the door preventing Mr. Soderberg from closing it. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.14.) Mr. Soderberg reacted in turn by wedging his foot against the inside of the door to keep the door from opening further. (Dkt. 22.) Attempting to force the door open, Officer Palmer threw his body against the door from his position in the hallway. (Dkt. 22.) Officer Palmer then grabbed Mr. Soderberg by the arms and kicked his leg several times in an attempt to knock Mr. Soderberg's foot away from the inside of the door. (Dkt. 3 at ¶¶ 5.15-5.16.) Mr. Soderberg alleges that Officer Palmer "physically wrenched" him from "behind the partially opened door" into the hallway "while punching and kicking him, and then threw him to the ground on all-fours." (Dkt. 22.) Officer Palmer ordered Mr. Soderberg to get on his stomach andput his hands behind his back all the while kicking and striking Mr. Soderberg, including knee strikes to his ribs. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.18.) The hallway was narrow and Mr. Soderberg states that he could not stretch out and lie on his stomach from the position he was in. (Dkt. 22.) Eventually, Mr. Soderberg was handcuffed and led out to a patrol car. He was arrested for frequenting a premises where drugs are being used and resisting and obstructing an officer. (Dkt. 3 at ¶¶ 5.21, 5.27.) Mr. Soderberg was placed in jail until he could make bail. Thereafter, Mr. Soderberg's attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence. The prosecutor ultimately dismissed the charges against Mr. Soderberg. (Dkt. 3 at ¶ 5.29.)
Mr. Soderberg contends that as a result of this incident and the subsequent criminal charges, he has suffered emotional and mental trauma, damage to his reputation and credibility that resulted in the loss of his pharmaceutical representative job, and a lack of steady employment at a comparable compensation level. (Dkt. 3 at ¶¶ 5.32-5.34.)
On January 30, 2016, Mr. Soderberg initiated these proceedings against the City of McCall, Officer Dallas Palmer, McCall Chief of Police Justin Williams, the Estate of former City Manager Eugene Drabinski, and former Interim McCall Chief of Police Larry Stokes. In his Complaint, Mr. Soderberg raises several § 1983 claims alleging the Defendants violated his constitutional rights when Officer Palmer conducted an unlawful search and seizure, invaded his right to privacy, used excessive force, and falsely arrested and confined him. (Dkt. 3.) Mr. Soderberg also raises other federal claims under § 1983 including conspiracy-failure to investigate; failure to supervise, train, and discipline; negligence; failure to implement appropriate policies; and malicious prosecution. (Dkt. 3.)Additionally, Mr. Soderberg asserts the following state law claims: unlawful search and seizure; unlawful entry; assault and battery; discrimination; false imprisonment; trespass and malicious injury to property; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligence. (Dkt. 3.)
On March 16, 2017, Defendants filed this Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Mr. Soderberg's claims which the Court now takes up. (Dkt. 15.)
Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or defense, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Summary judgment is "not a disfavored procedural shortcut," but is instead the "principal tool[] by which factually insufficient claims or defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going to trial with the attendant unwarranted consumption of public and private resources." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
Rule 56 mandates summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element which is essential to the non-moving party's case and upon which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. To show the material facts are not in dispute, a party may cite to particular parts of the record, or show that the materials cited in the record do not establish the presence of a genuine dispute, or that the adverse party is unable to produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B); see T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). The Court must consider "the cited materials," but it may also consider "other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).
The materials presented by the parties must be "presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The Court does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence put forth by the non-moving party and it must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir. 1992).
This is a civil rights action. Mr. Soderberg's federal claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Dkt. 3.) His state law claims allege violations of the Idaho Constitution and state law.
As a preliminary matter, Mr. Soderberg concedes that Defendants should be granted summary judgment on the following federal claims: (1) right to privacy, as it is subsumed by his search and seizure claim, and (2) conspiracy-failure to investigate. (Dkt. 22.) Mr. Soderberg also concedes that Defendants should be granted summary judgment on thefollowing state law claims: (1) unlawful search and seizure, (2) unlawful entry, (3) discrimination, and (4) malicious injury to property. (Dkt. 22.) As such, this Court grants Defendants' Motion as to Counts Three, Four, Five, Eight, Eleven, and Fourteen of the Complaint. (Dkt. 3.) The Court finds as follows on the remaining claims.
"Section 1983 provides a cause of action for violations of a plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law." Summers v. City of McCall, 84 F.Supp.3d 1126, 1146 (D. Idaho 2015) (citing Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009)). "The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights." McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992)). To prevail on a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) acts by the defendant, (2) under color of state law, (3) deprived him of federal rights, privileges, or immunities and (4) caused him damage. See Wyatt, 504 U.S. at 161 (citing Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2005)).
The parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial