Urbanique Production v. City of Montgomery

• Decision Date: 28 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. Civ.A.2:03CV1150-ID.,Civ.A.2:03CV1150-ID.
• Citation: 428 F.Supp.2d 1193
• Parties: URBANIQUE PRODUCTION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

428 F.Supp.2d 1193

URBANIQUE PRODUCTION, et al., Plaintiffs, v.The CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A.2:03CV1150-ID.

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

March 28, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Amardo Wesley Pitters, A. Wesley Pitters, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Wallace Damon Mills, City of Montgomery, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DEMENT, Senior District Judge.

I.INTRODUCTION

Before the court is a motion for summary judgment(Doc. No. 56), filed by Defendants the City of Montgomery, Chris Wingard and J.T. Conway.A brief and an evidentiary submission accompany the motion.(Doc. No. 57).Plaintiffs Urbanique Productions/Music Publishing, Cleveland Jointer and Xavier Jointer submitted a memorandum in response and an evidentiary submission (Doc. No. 59) to which Defendants filed a reply.¹(Doc. No. 60.)

This lawsuit arises from events pertaining to the warrant search of Jointer's and Cleveland Jointer's residence from which Jointer and Cleveland Jointer also operated a business called "Urbanique," Jointer's warrantless arrest at the scene of the search, the dismissal in federal court of the criminal complaint against Jointer, and the subsequent state prosecution of Jointer.Plaintiffs bring Fourth AmendmentandFourteenth Amendment claims, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983(" § 1983"), against Defendants for unlawful search, false arrest, excessive force, malicious and retaliatory prosecution, and race discrimination, as well as state law claims for municipal tort liability, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and wantonness.Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims, and the Individual Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense to the § 1983 constitutional claims.After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law and the record as a whole, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be entered in Defendants' favor on Plaintiffs' constitutional claims under § 1983 and that Plaintiffs' state law claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

II.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court properly exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 1343(civil rights jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(supplemental jurisdiction).The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and the court finds adequate allegations of both.

III.STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court considering a motion for summary judgment must construe the evidence and make factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986);Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142(1970).Summary judgment is entered only if it is shown "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).At this juncture, the court does not "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter," but solely "determiners] whether there is a genuine issue for trial."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986)(citations omitted).This determination involves applying substantive law to the substantive facts that have been developed.A dispute about a material fact is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, based on the applicable law in relation to the evidence developed.Seeid. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505;Barfield v. Brierton,883 F.2d 923, 933(11th Cir.1989).

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.SeeCelotex,477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548."[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by `showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case."Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548.The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, which "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538(1986).Summary judgment will not be entered unless the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.Seeid. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348.

IV.STATEMENT OF FACTS

Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the following facts constitute the facts material to resolution of the instant motion for summary judgment.²Jointer co-owns a "business venture" with his brother, Cleveland Jointer.(2" Am. Compl. ¶ 5.)The business venture is named "Urbanique."(Id.)Jointer describes the business as a "small recording studio, where we make music, engineer, mix and master audio."(Jointer Aff.at 2(unnumbered page)(Pls. Ex. A toDoc. No. 59)); (see also2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 5.)Jointer and Cleveland Jointer live and operate their business from their residence located at 3610 Castle Ridge Road.(Jointer Aff.at 2-3.)

Jointer, Cleveland Jointer and Urbanique are Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.Plaintiffs have sued Conway and Wingard, both of whom at all relevant times were police offieers with the Montgomery Police Department("MPD") assigned to the MPD's Special Operations Division, Narcotics and Intelligence Bureau ("Narcotics Bureau").(2" Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.)Conway and Wingard are sued in their individual capacities for monetary damages.(Id. & damages demand at 7-10.)The City of Montgomery also is a defendant.(Id.If ¶ 6.)

On July 17, 2003, Conway obtained a search warrant for the premises of 3610 Castle Ridge Road, Montgomery, Alabama.(Search Warrant (Ex. 1 to Doc. No. 57).)In support of the search warrant, Conway submitted an affidavit.(Aff. in support of Search Warrant (Ex. 2 to Doc. No. 57).)In his affidavit, Conway sets forth that, at that time, he had attained the rank of corporal and was a 15year MPD veteran, having worked the past 10 of those years in the MPD's Narcotics Bureau.The affidavit establishes that Conway, acting in an undercover capacity, made two controlled drug buys in July 2003.(Id. at 1.)

On the first occasion, Conway met with two individuals identified only as "a white male" and "a white female" for the purpose of purchasing cocaine from them.(Id.)The white male was given $140.00 of MPD "buy money."(Id.)Before departing, the white male and the white female instructed Conway to meet them in 30 minutes at a local restaurant.Law enforcement officials followed the white male and white female, who were traveling together in a single vehicle, to an apartment with an address of 3610 Castle Ridge Road.Law enforcement officials observed the white female exit the vehicle and enter the apartment for "[a] short time," before returning to the vehicle.(Id.)Still under law enforcement surveillance, the two subjects met Conway arid gave film approximately two grams of cocaine.(Id.)

On the second occasion in July 2003, Conway met with the same white male at a local restaurant, again for the purpose of buying cocaine.This time, the white male was accompanied by an "unknown black male."³(Id.)Conway gave the white male $280.00 of MPD "buy money."(Id.)Unbeknownst to the white male and the black male, law enforcement officials followed the vehicle in which the suspects were traveling to the same apartment at 3610 Castle Ridge Road.The black male exited the vehicle, entered the apartment for "a short time" and returned to the vehicle.(Id. at 2.)These two individuals were followed by law enforcement officials to the restaurant at which time the white male exited his vehicle and got into the vehicle in which Conway was waiting.The white male gave Conway approximately five grams of "crack cocaine."(Id.)During this second drug transaction, the white male informed Conway that his source had available for sale ounce and kilogram quantities of cocaine.(Seeid.)

Based on the information in Conway's affidavit, Patrick J. Murphy, in his capacity as magistrate for the Municipal Court of the City of Montgomery, Alabama, signed the search warrant, authorizing the "immediate search" of the residence at 3610 Castle Ridge Road, for the following property: "controlled substances, controlled substance paraphernalia, drug related documents, monies, drug records," and other drug-related items listed in an attachment to the warrant.(Id.)The search warrant was executed on July 25, 2003, by Conway, Wingard and other members of the MPD Narcotics Bureau.Seized from the apartment were the following: approximately 331 grams of cocaine base; 61 grams of cocaine; two assault rifles; three handguns; $2185.00 in U.S. currency; and electronic equipment related to the business of Urbanique.(Criminal Compl.at 2-3(Ex. toDoc. No. 57)); (Jointer Aff.at 6.(Ex. toDoc. No. 59).)

Jointer was the only individual on the premises at 3610 Castle Ridge Road when Conway, Wingard and other officers executed the search warrant.Jointer was arrested almost immediately after the officers entered the residence.With his hands on the back of his head, Jointer walked a few steps into the living room where the officers surrounded him.He was placed in handcuffs, "as an officer stood over [him] with his foot on the back of [his] neck."(Jointer Aff.at 2.)Wingard then shouted, "I got him," and "picked [Jointer] up off the floor and escorted [him] outside."(Id.)Wingard drove Jointer, who was accompanied in the back of the van by four other officers, to the MPD narcotics headquarters.At the narcotics headquarters, Jointer's handcuffs were removed, and Jointer was asked general questions regarding his identity, his address and occupation.Responding, Jointer informed Wingard that he and his b...