Watson v. Spilman
| Decision Date | 05 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:13CV746 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | CALVIN WATSON, Plaintiff, v. R. L. SPILMAN, et al., Defendants. |
Calvin Watson, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 19831 action in which he alleges Defendant Rebecca L. Spilman, a police officer for the City of Manassas, violated his rights under the Fourth2 and Fourteenth Amendments3 and slandered his name. The matter is before the Court on Officer Spilman's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. Watson has responded. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Claim Five will be GRANTED.
The Court generously construes the Complaint to argue entitlement to relief based upon the following claims:
Claim Three: Officer Spilman falsely imprisoned Watson for public intoxication in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Claim Four: Officer Spilman violated Watson's due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment "by charging him with threat for stateing [sic] he was going to file legal action." (Compl. 4.)4
Claim Five: Officer Spilman slandered his name by suggesting that Watson was a homosexual because he had an "Angry Birds" nail kit in his bag.
Watson seeks monetary damages.
Summary judgment must be rendered "if 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 party seeking summary judgment bears the responsibility to inform the court of the basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotationmarks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or '"depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."' Id. (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)).
In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the court "must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United States v. Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere scintilla of evidence will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 ). '"[T]here is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party . . . upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.'" Id. (quoting Munson, 81 U.S. at 448). Additionally, '"Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.'" Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915 n.7 (5th Cir. 1992)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) ().
In support of her Motion for Summary Judgment, Officer Spilman submits: (1) her own affidavit (Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J, Attach. 1 (ECF No. 12-1) ("Spilman Aff.")); (2) the affidavit of Jeffrey Shubert, a police officer for the City of Manassas (id. Attach. 2 (ECF No. 12-2) ("Shubert Aff.")); (3) the affidavit of Trey Cram, a police officer for the City of Manassas (id. Attach. 3 (ECF No. 12-3) ("Cram Aff.")); (4) the affidavit of Jeremy Wyche, an intake officer at the Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (id. Attach. 4 (ECF No. 12-4) ("Wyche Aff.")); and (5) various state court records (id. Ex. A-G).
As a general rule, a non-movant must respond to a motion for summary judgment with affidavits or other verified evidence. Ceiotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. Watson submitted an unsworn Response Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 19) and two unsworn documents entitled "Affidavit Response[s]" to the affidavits of Shubert and Cram. (ECF Nos. 24-25). Watson's "Affidavit Response[s]" are not admissible for summary judgment because their content is not sworn to under penalty of perjury and there is no indication that the notary administered an oath to Plaintiff. See McCoy v. Robinson, No. 3:08CV555, 2010 WL 3735128, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2010) (alterations in original) . Watson's submissions, including his Complaint and Response in Opposition, fail to constitute admissible evidence because Watson failed to swear to the contents of his submissions under penalty of perjury. See United States v. White, 366 F.3d 291, 300 (4th Cir. 2004).
In light of the foregoing principles and submissions, the following facts are established for the purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment. All permissible inferences are drawn in favor of Watson.
On August 7, 2013, Officer Spilman was engaged in traffic patrol at the intersection of Beech Place and George Street in Manassas, Virginia. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 2.) At 1900 hours, she observed Watson wearing sweatpants, and no shirt, sweating profusely, and walking down the middle of the road on Beech Place. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Officer Spilman observed that (Id. ¶ 3.) Spilman exited her car and asked Watson if she could speak with him. (Id. ¶ 5.) Simultaneously,Officer Shubert, who had been patrolling a nearby neighborhood, arrived to provide back-up because the neighborhood "[was] known as a high crime area" and in case the disturbance escalated. (Id. ¶ 7; Shubert Aff. ¶ 2.) Officer Shubert also observed Watson speaking to himself, punching at the air, appearing to be in a daze, and walking down the middle of the road. (Shubert Aff. ¶ 3.) Watson stopped and " (Spilman ¶ 6.) Without Officer Spilman's prompting, Watson placed his hands on the hood of a parked vehicle "as if expecting to be searched." (Id. ¶ 6; Shubert Aff. ¶ 6.) Neither officer touched or searched him at that time. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 6; Shubert Aff. ¶ 6.))
Officer Spilman instructed Watson that he needed to stop walking in the middle of the road. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 8.) Watson denied walking in the middle of the road, and stated "that he was walking 'with the kids.'" (Id. ¶ 9.) Officer Spilman observed no children walking with Watson at any time. (Id.) Officer Spilman asked Watson why he was sweating so much, as sweat was pouring off his body, but he did not appear or sound out of breath. (Spilman Aff. ¶10; Shubert Aff. ¶ 7.) The officers noted that "the amount of sweat did not appear to be consistent with the heat." (Shubert Aff. ¶ 7.) Officer Spilman asked where he was coming from and headed to and asked for identification. (Spilman Aff. ¶11.) Watson had no identification and informed the officers "that he had been working out in the park" (Spilman Aff. ¶ 12; Shubert Aff. ¶ 8) and "playing with 'the kids.'" (Spilman Aff. ¶ 12.) Both officers, and Officer Cram who had arrived as back up, noted that Watson's responses to questions were unusually delayed, his pupils were constricted, he was swaying back and forth, and his profuse sweat smelled of ether. (Id. ¶¶ 13-16; Shubert Aff. ¶¶ 9-12; Cram Aff. ¶¶ 6-8.) The officers noted that Watson's "demeanor changed erratically throughout the conversation, from highly agitated to calm, from yelling to calm, for no particular reason." (Spilman Aff. ¶ 16; Shubert Aff. ¶ 13; Cram Aff. ¶ 9.)At one point, Watson "pushed himself off the vehicle and faced [the officers] with his fists tightly clenched." (Spilman Aff. ¶ 16.) Based upon their training and experience, Officers Spilman, Shubert, and Cram aver that the characteristics Watson exhibited were common side-effects and indicators of the use of phencyclidine, known as PCP. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 17; Shubert Aff. ¶ 14; Cram Aff. ¶ 10.)5
Officer Spilman placed Watson under arrest for public intoxication and read Watson his Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) rights. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 18; Cram Aff. ¶¶ 11-12.) Given Watson's "irate and unpredictable behavior," Officers Spilman and Shubert placed Watson in handcuffs. (Shubert Aff. ¶ 16.) Officers Spilman and Cram searched Watson's person and his backpack in his presence for objects that could endanger Officer Spilman's safety or that were not allowed at the detention center, and found none. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 20.) Officer Spilman placed Watson in the back of her vehicle and took him to the Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center. (Id. ¶ 21.)
During the drive, Watson's behavior remained erratic, and he alternated between being happy and jovial and screaming obscenities. (Id. ¶ 22.) Inside the detention center, Officer Spilman took Watson before the magistrate so she could swear a warrant for his arrest. (Spilman Aff. ¶ 23.) Watson's behavior remained erratic and he frequently interrupted the magistrate and Officer Spilman. (Id.) The magistrate told Watson that...
To continue reading
Request your trial