Walker v. City of Dothan
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1:18-cv-170-JTA (WO) |
| Parties | JOHN ALLEN WALKER, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF DOTHAN, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 67.) The Court has carefully reviewed the brief in support of the motion (Doc. No. 68), Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. No. 73), Defendants' reply (Doc. No. 75), and the supporting and opposing evidentiary materials. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 67) is due to be GRANTED.
Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the 'pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing, or pointing out to, the district court that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-324. A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(e) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). On the other hand, the evidence of the nonmovant must be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in its favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). As stated by the Court in Celotex, if the non-moving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial," the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
This case stems from the arrest of Plaintiff John Allen Walker on March 30, 2010, in Dothan, Alabama, and his subsequent prosecution for obstruction of governmental operations. The undisputed facts are as follows.
Defendant Steve Parrish ("Chief Parrish") has been Chief of the Dothan Police Department since May 1, 2015. .) The City of Dothan, Alabama ("Dothan") Police Department requires appropriate in-service training of its officers over and above what is required by the State of Alabama. (Id. at 3.) The Dothan Police Department has been certified by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies since July 2012. (Id.) On March 30, 2010, the date this cause of action arose, Chief Parrish was the Captain of the Administrative Services Division of the Dothan Police Department. (Id. at 2.) As Captain of the Administrative Services Division, Chief Parrish's responsibilities did not include the training of Dothan Police officers or the supervision of officers assigned to the Patrol Division of the Dothan Police Department. (Id.)
Defendant Michael Miller ("Officer Miller") was employed as a Dothan Police officer from July 30, 2007, until November 30, 2011. (Id. at. 2.) Officer Miller was certified by the Alabama Peace Officer's Standards and Training (APOST) Commission at all times during his employment and received training that met or exceeded the minimum standards required by the Commission as a Dothan Police officer. (Id.)
Daniel Grantham ("Officer Grantham") has been employed as a Dothan Police officer since February 11, 2008. (Id. at. 3.) Officer Grantham has been APOST certified at all times during his employment and has received training that meets or exceeds the minimum standards required under the Alabama Peace Officer's Standards and Training Commission as a Dothan Police officer. (Id.)
On March 30, 2010, Officer Miller was conducting a traffic stop near the intersection of Shirley and Burdshaw Streets. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 30-31.) Officer Grantham was dispatched as backup and began directing traffic while Officer Miller conducted the traffic stop. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 32-33.) While directing traffic, Officer Grantham observed a white minivan occupied by two individuals approach and stop by the vehicle involved in the traffic stop. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 34-35.) Plaintiff John Walker was in the passenger seat, and his wife, Beverly Walker, was the driver of the white minivan. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 34-36.) The Walkers communicated with the individual involved in the traffic stop. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 61-62.)
This is where the undisputed facts end and the factual disputes begin. Defendants aver Officer Grantham approached the minivan while signaling for the driver to continue moving and verbally instructed the driver to keep moving. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2-3.) As Officer Grantham approached the passenger side of the minivan, he informed the Walkers that the officers were on a traffic stop and they needed to keep moving. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 2-3; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 35-37, 62.) According to Officer Grantham, John Walker did not comply with his instructions and argued with him. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 3; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 37-38.) According to the Walkers, the road was blocked by oncoming traffic that prevented Beverly Walker from complying with the instructions by the officer. (Doc. No. 73-2, Beverly Walker Aff. at 1; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 62-63.) The Walkers assert that John Walker did not argue with the officer. (Doc. No. 73-2, Beverly Walker Aff. at 2; Doc. No. 73-1, John Walker Aff. at 2.)
The encounter between the officers and the Walkers continued until John Walker was arrested. One of the officers placed John Walker under arrest for obstruction of governmental operations and transported him to the Dothan City Jail for booking. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 3-4; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Transcript at 40-41.) The Walkers assert that it was Officer Miller who placed John Walker under arrest. (Doc. No. 72 at 1; Doc. No. 73-1 at 1; Doc. No. 73-2 at 2.) But, according to Officer Grantham, he placed John Walker under arrest. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 3-4.)
On April 2, 2010, Officer Grantham prepared a complaint charging John Walker ("Walker") with obstruction of governmental operations, which was signed and sworn before City of Dothan Magistrate Valarie Savage. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 4; Doc. No. 68-5, Ex. D, Compl.) Neither Chief Parrish nor Officer Miller took part in preparing, signing or swearing to the complaint against Walker. .)
On October 21, 2011, Walker pled not guilty to the charge of obstruction of governmental operations in the Dothan Municipal Court and a trial was held. (Doc. No. 68-9, Ex. E, Municipal Court Case Disposition.) Officer Grantham testified at the trial. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 4-5.) Neither Chief Parrish nor Officer Miller testified or assisted in any way in the municipal court trial. .) After trial, the municipal judge found Walker guilty and sentenced him to 30 days in jail with execution of the sentence suspended for two years. (Doc. No. 68-9, Ex. E, Municipal Court Case Disposition.) The municipal judge also ordered Walker to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) and ordered him to pay court costs. (Id.)
On October 26, 2011, Walker appealed his conviction to the Houston County Circuit Court for trial de novo. (Doc. No. 68-7, Ex. F, Notice of Appeal.) On March 8, 2016, Walker's appeal was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Houston County. (Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr.; Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 4.) Officer Grantham was the sole witness for Dothan at the trial. (Doc. No. 68-2, Ex. B, Grantham Aff. at 4-5; Doc. No. 68-3, Ex. C, Circuit Court Tr. at 3, 30-49, 106-119.) Neither Chief Parrish nor Officer Miller testified or assisted in any way in Walker's circuit court trial. .) Walker was found not...
To continue reading
Request your trial