Whaley v. Alaska
| Decision Date | 22 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 4:21-cv-00006-JMK |
| Parties | JEFFREY WHALEY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPT. OF LAW, and SAFARILAND, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 46 is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant State of Alaska, Department of Law (the “State”). Plaintiff Jeffrey Whaley responded at Docket 50. The State replied at Docket 55. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
This action stems from efforts made by the Alaska State Troopers (“AST” or “troopers”) to remove Plaintiff from his vehicle on October 18, 2018, after a prolonged standoff. Earlier that evening, AST dispatch had received a report about a truck parked outside of a convenience store on Badger Road in Fairbanks, Alaska, with a man, later identified as Plaintiff, slumped over in his seat and an open bottle of beer in the center console.[1]A trooper responded to the call and observed Plaintiff passed out in his seat with the keys in the ignition and a pistol on his lap.[2] The trooper received information from dispatch identifying Plaintiff as the registered owner of the vehicle and a convicted felon who had been flagged as someone hostile to law enforcement.[3]
After back-up law enforcement arrived, troopers attempted to rouse Plaintiff with a loudspeaker.[4] Once awake, Plaintiff was directed to exit the vehicle. Plaintiff acknowledged and understood the directive but defiantly and profanely objected to the legality of his detainment and refused to comply.[5]The troopers explained that they had seen a gun in the cab of the truck and that they needed Plaintiff to keep his hands visible.[6]Plaintiff refused to comply with this directive. He grabbed a beer from his center console and proceeded to drink it in front of the officers after declaring he was “getting drunk.”[7]More law enforcement units were called to the scene, including those equipped with armored vehicles. An AST negotiator also arrived on the scene.[8]
Plaintiff was belligerent when communicating with the negotiator. He shouted about his detainment and yelled profanities, threats, and insults at the officers.[9]At certain points during his interaction with the negotiator, he would stand up and lean out of the vehicle.[10]He said that law enforcement would have to kill him to get him out of the truck and repeatedly talked about getting shot and killed.[11]At one point he declared he was “prepared to kill them.”[12]The troopers continually reassured him that they did not want to shoot him and that they wanted him to step out of the vehicle where they could make sure he did not have a gun within reach.[13]
After about an hour of trying to get Plaintiff to exit the truck, officers began deploying chemical agents around and into the truck through an open window in the back of the cab. Despite clouds of gas from multiple chemical agents deployed in his vicinity, Plaintiff refused to comply with law enforcement's demands. He suffered some observable effects from the chemicals, such as coughing and wiping eyes. At times, he would open the door and lean out of the truck as if he were going to exit, but then he would become defiant and shut himself back in the truck.[14]
After many rounds of chemical agents with no results, law enforcement decided to deploy more intrusive Stinger Grenades.[15]Stinger Grenades are made and sold by Safariland and are described as “combination Less Lethal Impact Munitions and Distraction Device[s]” that deliver up to four stimuli for psychological and physiological effect, namely rubber pellets, light, sound, and a chemical agent.[16]It is undisputed that Safariland's Stinger Grenades are classified as pyrotechnic devices and pose a risk of fire when deployed. While there is no burning flame involved with initiating the fuse, there is a bright flash that goes off for a few milliseconds that has fire-producing potential.[17]Stinger Grenades are considered “less lethal” devices and are specified for use “in tactical deployment situations” including “high-risk warrant service, hostage rescue, and the arrest of potentially violent subjects.”[18]The specifications sheet for the Stinger Grenades states that these grenades are “most widely used as a crowd management tool by law enforcement and corrections in indoor and outdoor operations.”[19]It warns, however, that “as with any pyrotechnic device, firefighting equipment should be available.”[20]At the bottom of the specifications sheet are two symbols identically sized and shaped-one that indicates the grenades can be used both indoors and outdoors and one indicates that they are explosives.[21]The specification sheet warns that improper use of the grenades can result in death or serious bodily injury and states that the devices are “generally reserved as a last selection” when other methods have not resolved the “disorder.”[22]The devices are only sold to law enforcement, corrections, or military agencies and only after the agency's personnel have completed a training program.[23]Here, it is undisputed that the officers involved in the decision to use and deploy Stinger Grenades had received the required training.[24] Troopers introduced one Stinger Grenade into the vehicle with no effect, and quickly followed it with a second. The second Stinger Grenade also did not prompt Plaintiff to exit the vehicle. Rather, Plaintiff leaned his head out the driver's side window to shout that all law enforcement needed to back away or there would be shooting and they would have to kill him and that he was ready to die.[25]He began counting.[26] At that point, troopers tossed a third Stinger Grenade through the cab's back window.[27]It is unclear from the video where the grenade landed inside the truck cab, but Plaintiff testified that the grenade landed on him and rolled between his legs.[28]After a few moments, Plaintiff began screaming and exited the truck in flames from his waist down to his thighs.[29]Troopers extinguished the fire while arresting him. Emergency medical personnel were present and transported him to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital. He suffered third degree burns that were eventually treated at a medical facility in Seattle.[30]
Plaintiff filed suit in Alaska Superior Court against the State and the manufacturer of the Stinger Grenades, Defendant Safariland, LLC.[31]The State removed the lawsuit to this Court, invoking federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[32]The claims against Safariland were dismissed at Docket 57. Only the state law tort claims based on the troopers' conduct remain. Plaintiff alleges that the troopers involved “knew or should have known that yelling at a startled man who had been sleeping in a car was an unreasonable escalation of force” and that “they knew or should have known . . . that [he] was having mental difficulty processing the circumstances.”[33]He alleges that they “knew or should have known that throwing a Stinger [G]renade toward a man inside a vehicle was likely to cause unreasonable harm.”[34] He alleges that the troopers' escalation of the confrontation and use of Stinger Grenades amounted to “negligence and/or gross negligence” and “recklessness and/or maliciousness.”[35]In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not name the individual troopers; instead, he names only the State based on its vicarious liability for the troopers' negligent conduct.[36] He also raises a separate claim against the State for negligent training and/or supervision.[37] The State now moves for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[38]The materiality requirement ensures that “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”[39]Ultimately, “summary judgment will not lie if the . . . evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”[40]However, summary judgment is mandated “against a party who 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.”[41]
The moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.[42]Where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, the moving party need not present evidence to show that summary judgment is warranted; it need only point out the lack of a genuine dispute as to any material fact.[43]Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.[44]All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of summary judgment and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.[45]However, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials but must show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute to require a fact-finder to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.[46]
To continue reading
Request your trial