Stych v. City of Muscatine, Ia

Decision Date18 September 2009
Docket NumberNo. 4:07-cv-520.,4:07-cv-520.
Citation655 F.Supp.2d 928
PartiesTodd STYCH, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF MUSCATINE, IOWA as a municipal corporation, and Art P. Anderson, individually and in his capacity as a police officer employed by the City of Muscatine, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

Timothy C. Boller, Dunakey & Klatt, PC, Waterloo, IA, Bruce L. Gettman, Jr. Redfern Mason Larsen & Moore PLC, Cedar Falls, IA, for Defendants.

Jeffrey K. McGinness, James E. Shipman, Simmons Perrine Moyer & Bergman PLC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER

ROBERT W. PRATT, Chief Judge.

On January 30, 2008, Plaintiff, Todd Stych ("Plaintiff"), filed an Amended Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants, alleging that he was "forcibly handcuffed, seized, and arrested by Defendant Anderson who was acting within the scope of his employment with the City of Muscatine." Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Specifically, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts that on August 13, 2007,1 Plaintiff received notification that his son had suffered a potentially serious injury during high school football practice; after receiving this call, Plaintiff immediately drove to Muscatine High School; while Plaintiff was en route to Muscatine High School, Defendant Art P. Anderson ("Anderson") pursued and stopped Plaintiff for an alleged moving traffic violation; and that despite Plaintiff's explanation of the medically emergent purpose of his trip, Anderson "forcefully proceeded with an arrest and, in the course thereof, used excessive and unnecessary force." Id. ¶¶ 6-9. Plaintiff contends that Anderson's actions caused him physical and emotional injuries, and that Anderson is liable for: 1) negligence; 2) negligence per se; 3) assault and/or battery; 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 5) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On July 15, 2009, Defendant City of Muscatine ("City of Muscatine") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk's No. 37. On the same date, Anderson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Oral Argument. Clerk's No. 38. Plaintiff filed a resistance to the Motions for Summary Judgment on August 5, 2009. Clerk's Nos. 40, 41, 43. City of Muscatine filed a Reply on August 21, 2009. Clerk's Nos. 48, 49. Anderson joined in City of Muscatine's Reply on the same date. Clerk's No. 50. Having reviewed the record before it, the Court does not believe that oral arguments will materially aid it in resolving the present motions. Accordingly, the matters are fully submitted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

According to Plaintiff, his son, Corey Stych ("Corey"), was participating in football practice at Muscatine High School on the afternoon of August 13, 2007. Pl.'s Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "Pl.'s Facts") ¶ 1. At some time during the practice, Corey sustained a neck injury and collapsed. Id. The athletic trainer, Jess Burgason ("Burgason"), evaluated Corey at the scene. Id. ¶ 2. Burgason did not feel the injury was serious enough to call an ambulance, but she did call Plaintiff to inform him that Corey had been injured and that he should be taken to the emergency room for further evaluation. Id. ¶ 3; Pl.'s App. at 9 (Burgason Dep.).

According to Plaintiff's deposition, he was only a short distance from the high school, in the vicinity of Grace Lutheran Church, when he noticed a police vehicle behind him with its lights on. Pl.'s App. at 22-23. Rather than pull over immediately, Plaintiff "made a motion with [his] right arm inside the car that [he] was going" in the direction of the high school, and he proceeded the remaining distance to Muscatine High School. Id. at 23. Plaintiff drove four-tenths of a mile to the high school,2 parked, and exited his vehicle. Id. at 24-25. As Anderson was emerging from his own vehicle, Plaintiff claims that he "turned around to communicate" with Anderson. Id. at 25. Plaintiff testified that he remained stationary by his own vehicle's door and did not advance toward Anderson. Id. While Plaintiff is uncertain as to who spoke first, it appears that Anderson began shouting at Plaintiff to "get back in the car" at the same time Plaintiff told Anderson that his son was at the practice field with a neck injury. Id. According to Plaintiff, he again told Anderson that his "son [was] at the practice field," at which time Anderson "pulled his gun and said, `Get back in the car.'" Id.

Plaintiff testified that he got back in his still-running car and closed the door, though the window was rolled down. Id. at 26. Anderson quickly approached Plaintiff's vehicle and said "`[g]ive me your hand.'" Id. Plaintiff placed his left hand outside of the car window and Anderson, "[i]n an aggressive fashion," "grabbed [his] hand and pulled it backwards up against the doorjamb of [his] car." Id. at 28. Plaintiff, meanwhile, continued to state that his son was on the practice field with an injury. Id. Anderson "continued to pull [Plaintiff's left arm], took both hands and twisted [his] wrist, and put [Plaintiff's] arm in a nonnatural position while continuing to apply force." Id. Plaintiff admits that, when Anderson did this, he attempted to pull away: "I thought my arm was going to break, it was a natural reflex that I pulled my arm in this motion back away." Id. at 30. At some point, Anderson "lost his grip and regripped and kind of retorqued on [Plaintiff's] wrist again." Id. at 28. Anderson then put a handcuff on Plaintiff's left wrist and pulled him from the car. Id. Anderson testified: "The door to the car was opened, and I was pulled from the car and then pulled around and thrown down to the ground.... [J]ust one quick movement out and thrown and around, and I was wheeled around and then forced to fall backwards." Id. at 29. Plaintiff claims he landed on his bottom on the asphalt and that he hit his elbow and his head.3 Id. at 30. When Plaintiff attempted to sit up, Anderson told him to put his "hands on top of [his] head" and pointed a Taser at him, stating "`I'll use this.'" Id. at 30-31. Plaintiff complied, referencing his son again, and Anderson helped Plaintiff stand up, handcuffed him, and placed Plaintiff in the back of a police car. Id. at 31-32. According to Plaintiff, he was charged with several violations, but he eventually pled guilty to running a stop sign and paid a $150 fine. Id. at 33. The remaining charges were dismissed. Id.

Anderson told a somewhat different version of the events of August 13, 2007 during his deposition. Anderson testified that he observed Plaintiff drive down Parham Street and turn right onto Cedar Street without stopping at the stop sign at the intersection. Defs.' Joint App. at 9. Anderson activated his emergency lights. "Mr. Stych saw me and immediately sped up. I hit my siren ... and Mr. Stych sped up again. We were doing 55 miles an hour [in] a 35 mile-an-hour zone." Id. Anderson recounted that he did not see Plaintiff make any signals as he proceeded over a half-mile to the high school. Pl.'s App. at 51. As Plaintiff parked his vehicle in the high school driveway, Anderson parked his own vehicle approximately one and one-half car lengths behind him. Defs.' Joint App. at 10. According to Anderson, "Mr. Stych immediately jumped out of the vehicle and started coming back at me." Id. Anderson recounted that Plaintiff got out of his vehicle quickly, "thr[ew] back his seat belt," left his door open, and was "coming at [Anderson] aggressively." Pl.'s App. at 54. Anderson noted that Plaintiff "was yelling something, but at that point ... all I wanted to do was get out of my truck and tell him to get back in the car ... I was not listening to him. He had already brought himself up onto a use of force level where the conversation was over. He was doing what I told him to do for my safety." Id.; see also Defs.' Joint App. at 10 (Anderson testifying that Plaintiff did say something to him, but that he did not know what Plaintiff said). Anderson "exited [his] vehicle, drew [his] weapon,4 [and] told [Plaintiff] to get ... back in the vehicle."5 Defs.' Joint App. at 10. Anderson stated that he told Plaintiff at least twice to get back into his vehicle and that on the second request, Plaintiff complied. Pl.'s App. at 54. As Plaintiff got back in his vehicle, Anderson approached, reholstered his weapon, and told Plaintiff to put his hands outside the vehicle:

He failed to do that. I finally yelled at him to put his hands outside the vehicle. He finally puts one hand out of the vehicle, and at that moment I took hold of his wrist and placed a handcuff on ... his left hand.... He immediately pulled away from me, started fighting with me, tried to get away from me. That's when I opened up the door and pulled on his arm to get control of him.

Id. At some point after Anderson removed Plaintiff from his vehicle, Anderson lost his grip on the handcuff on Plaintiff's wrist. Id. at 56. Fearing he had lost control of the situation and that Plaintiff could now injure him with the handcuff on his wrist, Anderson placed both hands on Plaintiff's chest and pushed Plaintiff as hard as he could, causing Plaintiff to fall backwards onto "his buttocks, his back, the back of his head, and his right elbow." Id. Plaintiff attempted to sit up and Anderson pointed a Taser at Plaintiff, ordering him to stay down and put his hands behind his back. Id. Plaintiff complied, at which time Anderson applied the second handcuff, assisted Plaintiff to his feet, and walked Plaintiff over to the back of Plaintiff's vehicle to get him out of the roadway. Id. Having secured Plaintiff, Anderson now began to listen to him, and Plaintiff told Anderson about his son's injury. Id.

Two witnesses also testified about observing the interactions between Anderson and Plaintiff on August 13, 2007. Scott Beatty ("Beatty") testified that, at the time of the altercation between Anderson and Plaintiff, he was sitting in the hatch of his vehicle watching his son's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Williams v. City of Burlington
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 29 Enero 2021
    ...was pulled over for a municipal noise violation, so they argue no emergency response existed. Plaintiffs rely on Stych v. City of Muscatine , 655 F. Supp.2d 928 (S.D. Iowa 2009), for its proposition that a traffic stop cannot qualify as an emergency response. In Stych , the plaintiff ran a ......
  • State v. Iowa Dist. Court for Scott Cnty.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 2017
    ...injuries or that blocked a road.In contrast, a routine stop for traffic violations is not generally considered an emergency. In Stych v. City of Muscatine , the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa concluded as much in the context of the "emergency response" immuni......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT