Watson v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 17 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 4:17-CV-2187 RLW,4:17-CV-2187 RLW
• Citation: 447 F.Supp.3d 924
• Parties: Fred WATSON, Plaintiff, v. Eddie BOYD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

447 F.Supp.3d 924

Fred WATSON, Plaintiff,

v.Eddie BOYD, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:17-CV-2187 RLW

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed March 17, 2020

Blake Alexander Strode, Michael-John Voss, Jacqueline Marie Kutnik-Bauder, John McCann Waldron, ArchCity Defenders, Samuel Henderson, Henderson Law Firm LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

Geri Lynn Arrindell, Mickes O'Toole, LLC, John Michael Reeves, Jr., Reeves Law LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant Eddie Boyd, III.

Ronald A. Norwood, Aarnarian (Apollo) D. Carey, Jacqueline Katrina Graves, Lewis Rice, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant City of Ferguson Missouri.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 128) and Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Submission (ECF No. 140). These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition.

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2012, Officer Eddie Boyd, a Ferguson Police Officer, was patrolling at Forestwood Park in Ferguson, Missouri. (Defendants' Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("DSUMF"), ECF No. 129, ¶2). At approximately 8:17 p.m., Boyd observed a car with tinted windows and no front license plate, backed into a parking space against a tree line, and idling with its headlights on. (DSUMF, ¶3). Boyd claims he decided to investigate based upon some recent break-ins at the park. (DSUMF, ¶4). Boyd pulled his police cruiser next to Watson's vehicle and approached the car on foot. (DSUMF, ¶4).¹ Watson, having recently finished playing basketball, sat in the driver's seat of his idling vehicle, without wearing a seatbelt. (DSUMF, ¶7, PSUMF, ¶1).

Boyd asked for Watson's name and address. Watson provided the name "Fred Watson" and his Florida address that corresponded to his Florida driver's license. (PSUMF, ¶¶25-28).² Watson claims Boyd asked for Watson's social security number, which Watson refused to provide. (PSUMF, ¶21). Boyd could not find Watson in the system. (DSUMF, ¶16).

Watson asked Boyd for his name and badge number, but Boyd told Watson to look on the tickets he would receive. (PSUMF, ¶¶30-31). Watson then reached for his cell phone on the dashboard of his car to call 911. (DSUMF, ¶19; PSUMF, ¶¶32-33). Boyd claims he directed Watson not to use his cell phone (DSUMF, ¶20). Watson asserts Boyd drew his gun and pointed it at Watson's head. (PSUMF, ¶36-38). Boyd claims Watson refused to throw his keys out of the car and refused to exit the vehicle. (DSUMF, ¶¶22-23).

After two other Ferguson police officers responded as backup (DSUMF, ¶24), Watson exited his vehicle. (DSUMF, ¶25; PSUMF, ¶50). As he exited his vehicle, Watson closed his car door with his foot because he did not want his vehicle to be searched. (PSUMF, ¶51; DSUMF, ¶27). Boyd claims he interpreted this as a "furtive" movement. (DSUMF, ¶26). Watson claims that Boyd proceeded to ransack Watson's vehicle, looking for contraband, but found nothing. (PSUMF, ¶¶59-62).

Boyd states that during his search of the vehicle he located Watson's identification showing his name was "Freddie Watson." With this full information, Boyd then located Watson's name in the Regional Justice Information System ("REJIS") computer database. (DSUMF, ¶29). REJIS indicated Watson was a Missouri resident, he had not surrendered his Missouri license, and his license had expired. (DSUMF, ¶30). Boyd was not able to locate a valid driver's license for Watson in Florida, although the vehicle was registered in Florida. (DSUMF, ¶31). At the conclusion of the interaction, Boyd issued the following nine citations against Watson:

(1) Driving without operator's license in possession;

(2) Violation of financial responsibility ordinance (no insurance);

(3) Vision-reducing materials applied to windshield (illegal window tint);

(4) Failure to register vehicle (assuming Watson was a Missouri resident and the car was not actually registered in Florida);

(5) No inspection sticker (safety and emission testing);

(6) No seatbelt;

(7) Expired Missouri driver's license;

(8) Failure to comply (for refusal to provide pedigree information and refusing to exit the vehicle when advised he was under arrest); and

(9) Making a false statement (giving the name "Fred Watson" and stating he did not have identification, but a government ID was later located in his vehicle).

(DSUMF, ¶33).

At the time of these incidents, Watson was employed by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency ("NGA") by government contractor NJVC. (PSUMF, ¶3). Watson claims that during a routine periodic re-investigation into this background, his top-secret security clearance was not renewed, and he was placed on conditional status because he was unable to show that he resolved the citations from the City of Ferguson. (PSUMF, ¶¶118-120). Watson claims he was not able to show he resolved the tickets after two years and his security clearance was revoked, and he was terminated from his position. (PSUMF, ¶¶115, 123). Defendants, however, maintain that Watson's security clearance was suspended because he made the following statement to a NGA personnel security officer: "What if I went out there and started telling the Government's secrets on my time? Do you think they would go to court with me then?" (DSUMF, ¶37). Defendants contend that Watson's statement was deemed a serious threat to national security, his NGA security clearances were suspended, and NJVC terminated Watson's employment. (DSUMF, ¶¶38-39).

Watson filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") asserting various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims against Boyd for Unlawful Search and Seizure (Count I), Unlawful Retaliation (Count II), and Malicious Prosecution (Count III); and a claim against the City of Ferguson ("the City") for Monell municipal liability (Count IV).³

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

A. Standard of Review

Rule 12(f) provides "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." " ‘To prevail on a motion to strike, the movant must clearly show that the challenged matter has no bearing on the subject matter of the litigation and that its inclusion will prejudice the defendants.’ " Laney v. City of St. Louis, Mo. , No. 4:18 CV 1575 CDP, 2019 WL 2423308, at *8 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2019) (citing Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, Mo. , No. 4:18-CV-1677 CAS, 2019 WL 1695982, at *15 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2019) (quoting 2 James W. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[3] (3rd ed. 2018)).

B. Discussion

First, Defendants argue that Watson cannot provide his own statement of additional facts under Local Rule 4.01. See ECF No. 141 at 2. The Court has never interpreted this local rule in this manner and the Court denies Defendants' motion to strike a plaintiff's statement of additional facts on this basis.

Further, many of the documents in dispute are public records, which are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).⁴ Similarly, the Court finds even if some of these public records contain hearsay, then those objections can be cured through witness testimony at trial. Matters regarding admissibility of the reports and declarations will be addressed as part of other pretrial matters. The Court, however, addresses a few specific issues outlined by the parties.

1. Dissimilar and No Merit

Defendants argue that the documents related to allegations of misconduct against Boyd are inadmissible because they are dissimilar to the allegations in this case. Watson sets forth facts related to several complaints from citizens, Ferguson employees, and a police clerk. Defendants assert that the complaints should be stricken because Watson cannot demonstrate that any of the complaints were found to have merit and their "mere existence" cannot serve to support a claim for municipal liability. (ECF No. 141 at 5).

The Court denies the motion to strike these complaints against Watson simply because they are somewhat dissimilar and because some have not been sustained. The Court can evaluate and weigh the relevance of the complaints compared to the allegations in this case. Further, the Court holds that even unsustained complaints can have relevance to this case, particularly given the allegations that the City of Ferguson purposefully and systematically failed to supervise and discipline its officers. As a result, the Court denies the motion to strike these complaints.

2. Allegations of Misconduct After August 2012

Defendants further state that allegations of misconduct that occurred after August 2012 cannot support Watson's claims for constitutional violations. (ECF No. 141 at 6). Defendants contend that, under federal law, "[c]itizen complaints against an officer are only relevant to a municipal liability claim when the complaints were lodged prior to plaintiff's alleged injury." (ECF No. 141 at 6). That is, the municipality's inaction in the face of such allegations against the officer must be the "moving force" behind the plaintiff's injury for the complaints to be admissible. (ECF No. 141 at 6 (citing Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dep't , 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir. 1994) ("[A] government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation"); Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cty., Okl v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) ("Bryan County") ("The plaintiff must ... demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged") (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, Defendants argue that allegations that occurred after August 1, 2012 are inadmissible to support Watson's claims of constitutional injury.

In response, Watson argues that "even if Boyd's misconduct after August 1, 2012 cannot be admitted to prove that it caused the deprivation of Mr. Watson's constitutional rights, it can be admitted to show the existence of Ferguson's custom of failing to discipline...