Stewardson v. Cass Cnty.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-958 DRL-MGG |
| Parties | BLAKE STEWARDSON, Plaintiff, v. CASS COUNTY et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Law enforcement arrested Blake Stewardson for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and resisting law enforcement. At the jail, he physically struggled with law enforcement on several occasions, so officers tied him to a restraint chair. He alleges that law enforcement violated his constitutional rights. The remaining defendants—Sheriff Randy Pryor, Deputy Sheriff Christopher Titus, and Deputy Cameron Biggs—request summary judgment.1 The court grants the motion in part.
On January 1, 2018, Logansport Police Officer Joseph Schlosser arrested Blake Stewardson for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and resisting law enforcement (ECF 103-1; ECF 103-2). He transported Mr. Stewardson, who was intoxicated and impaired, to the Cass County Jail (ECF 103-3 at 84, 91). Mr. Stewardson confronted jail staff there and made obscene comments to Deputy Sheriff Christopher Titus, who ordered him to face the wall in the entryway between two sets of sliding doors so that he could perform a pat-down search (ECF 103-5 at 78-80). While trying to put him against the wall, Mr. Stewardson resisted Deputy Titus (ECF 103-3 at 93; ECF 103-5 at 85). Deputy Titus threwMr. Stewardson into the wall,2 causing a laceration over his left eye (ECF 103-3 at 85, 151; ECF 103-6 ¶¶ 3-4). Deputy Cameron Biggs was the officer in charge and observed this initial altercation, though he was still outside the entryway when it occurred (ECF 103-6 ¶ 2; 111-3 at 106-108 ().
Mr. Stewardson thereafter fell to the floor, and Deputies Titus and Biggs—Deputy Biggs had walked to the entryway by this time—piled on top of him (ECF 103-3 at 86). Mr. Stewardson physically resisted the officers, and they exchanged obscenities (ECF 103-3 at 96, 121-22). Mr. Stewardson says he was again thrown into the wall (ECF 103-3 at 123-24). The deputies didn't finish their search because of his resistance, so they took him to a padded cell (ECF 103-3 at 124; 103-5 at 91-92). They did so because he wasn't complying with orders, had an open wound, and could be concealing contraband (ECF 103-5 at 92-93; see Video at 12:48:22-12:49:35 AM).
Upon entering the cell, Deputy Titus leg swept Mr. Stewardson to the ground after he refused to get on his knees, with words exchanged (ECF 103-3 at 87; ECF 103-5 at 106-07; Video at 12:49:34-12:49:40 AM). Deputies Titus and Biggs restrained Mr. Stewardson at various pressure points; and once satisfied he was secured, Deputy Titus tried removing Mr. Stewardson's handcuffs (ECF 103-3 at 87). Though he was able to remove the handcuff from the right hand, he couldn't remove the handcuff from the left hand because the key broke (ECF 103-5 at 114). Fearing he might use the handcuff still around his left wrist as a weapon, Deputies Titus and Biggs (along with other officers) continued restraining Mr. Stewardson (ECF 103-5 at 114; see Video at 12:49:35-12:54:44 AM).
Mr. Stewardson, while continuously resisting law enforcement's efforts, tried pulling his right arm away from Deputy Biggs while kicking another officer (ECF 103-3 at 95-96). Deputy Biggs responded with a "common peroneal knee strike" on Mr. Stewardson (ECF 103-5 at 236; see Video at12:54:44-12:54:53 AM). Later, an officer brought bolt cutters to cut off the handcuff on Mr. Stewardson's left wrist (ECF 103-5 at 238). After the handcuffs were removed, Mr. Stewardson again resisted officers, so Deputy Biggs performed a second peroneal knee strike (Video at 1:15:20-1:15:40 AM). Throughout this period, Mr. Stewardson continued yelling threats and obscenities at the officers.
At some point, Mr. Stewardson said he was suicidal, so Deputy Biggs put him on suicide watch (ECF 103-5 at 119-20, 123-24). Arrestees on suicide watch are usually not allowed to have clothing because of the risk that their clothing could be swallowed to induce a stoppage of the air passageway or hang themselves (ECF 103-5 at 30). Perceiving this to be a risk, officers removed Mr. Stewardson's clothing while he continued resisting them, though they left him with a blanket (Video at 1:15:40-1:17:30 AM).
Once the officers left, Mr. Stewardson tried covering the surveillance camera with the blanket (Video at 1:18:22-1:18:47 AM). In response, Deputy Biggs decided Mr. Stewardson needed to be tied to the restraint chair to prevent him from blocking the camera or harming himself (ECF 103-5 at 141-42). Deputy Titus, acting under Deputy Biggs' authority as officer in charge, ordered Mr. Stewardson multiple times through the cell door to go to the back of the cell, but he refused to comply and threatened Deputy Titus in return (ECF 103-5 at 134). Deputy Titus then pinned Mr. Stewardson to the wall with the door so officers could enter the cell (ECF 103-5 at 133-38; Video at 1:19:13-1:19:17 AM). After entering, Deputy Titus ordered Mr. Stewardson to go to the back of the cell, but he refused (ECF 103-3 at 104). Accordingly, Deputy Titus "hip tossed" Mr. Stewardson to the ground (ECF 103-5 at 254), and Deputy Titus and other officers tied him to the restraint chair while he resisted (ECF 103-3 at 96-97). He was strapped naked, but they covered him with a blanket so that he was no longer exposed (Video at 1:19:13-1:21:57 AM).
After approximately 40 minutes, the officers released Mr. Stewardson from the restraint chair (ECF 103-6 ¶ 18) and left him with blankets (Video 2:01:52-2:15:02 AM). By then, the laceration abovehis left eye had stopped bleeding (ECF 103-6 ¶ 18). Mr. Stewardson began digging at the laceration, and it started bleeding, forming a puddle of blood on the floor (ECF 103-6 ¶ 19; Video 2:16:23-2:19:00 AM). Deputy Biggs alerted the nurse, and he applied gauze to the bleeding (ECF 103-6 ¶¶ 20-26; Video 2:34:19-2:35:26 AM). While Deputy Biggs was on duty, Mr. Stewardson never made a medical complaint, requested to see a nurse, requested to go to the hospital, or claimed to have an unmet medical need (ECF 103-6 ¶ 28). Deputy Biggs didn't believe Mr. Stewardson needed to go to the hospital for medical treatment or that he needed additional medical attention on top of what the nurse provided (ECF 103-6 ¶ 20).
Mr. Stewardson sued multiple government defendants for violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants Sheriff Randy Pryor, Deputy Sheriff Christopher Titus, and Deputy Cameron Biggs moved for partial summary judgment (ECF 101). The City of Logansport had moved to dismiss claims against John Doe defendants (ECF 109) and the City of Logansport and Officer Joseph Schlosser moved for summary judgment for themselves (ECF 112), but these parties subsequently settled and the court mooted these motions accordingly (ECF 132). The Sheriff defendants' motion for summary judgment is the only dispositive motion pending.
Several arguments have been mooted because Mr. Stewardson abandoned claims in his response.3 The court must grant summary judgment when "the movant shows that 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). The non-moving party must present the court with evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely to find in his favor. Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). The court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, view all reasonableinferences in that party's favor, Bellaver v. Quanex Corp., 200 F.3d 485, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2000), and avoid "the temptation to decide which party's version of the facts is more likely true." Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003).
In its review, the court "is not to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and inconsistencies, and decide whom to believe." Waldridge v. Am. Heochst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). Nor is the court "obliged to research and construct legal arguments for parties." Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011). Instead, the "court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial." Id. The court must grant a summary judgment motion when no such genuine factual issue—a triable issue—exists under the law. Luster v. Ill. Dep't of Corrs., 652 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 2011).
Mr. Stewardson alleges violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 serves as a procedural vehicle for lawsuits "vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). To establish a § 1983 claim, he must show that he was "deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law, by a person acting under color of law." Thurman v. Vill. of Homewood, 446 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2006). He may bring a § 1983 claim only against those individuals "personally responsible for the constitutional deprivation." Doyle v. Camelot Care Ctrs., Inc., 305 F.3d 603, 614 (7th Cir. 2002).
Before addressing the summary judgment motion's merits, the court addresses Mr. Stewardson's motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF 127). This motion was filed approximately five weeks after the remaining defendants filed their summary judgment reply. Mr. Stewardson doesn't explain the reason or good cause for a surreply or why it was necessary on this timeline, so the court won't reopen briefing. The court denies the motion.
Mr. Stewardson claims that the Cass County Sheriff's Department had an unconstitutional policy or practice (count 1) and failed to train and supervise its employees (count 2). Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial