Wheatcroft v. City of Glendale
| Decision Date | 22 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | CV-18-02347-PHX-MTL |
| Parties | Johnny Wheatcroft, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Glendale, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Jody Lynn Broaddus Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm
ORDER (TEMPORARILY SEALED)
Michael T. Liburdi, United Slates District Judge.
On July 26, 2017, Glendale Police Department Officers Schneider Lindsey, and Fernandez arrested Johnny Wheatcroft in the parking lot of a Motel 6. (Doc. 8 ¶¶ 12, 14, 38.) Wheatcroft filed suit against the Officers and the City of Glendale (“Defendants”), alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipal liability, and state law emotional distress and loss of consortium. (Id. at 8, 10, 12, 13, 17.) Currently pending before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 245 and 274 (redacted version)) and partial Daubert Motion (Doc. 243). Also pending is Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Testimonial Evidence. (Doc. 284.) The Court rules as follows.[1]
The facts set forth below are taken from the parties' separate statement of facts (Docs. 246, 261) and from the body camera recordings of the incident. Although the Court has generally construed the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, as the non- movant, and resolved factual disputes in their favor, the Court “do[es] not accept a nonmovant's version of events when it is ‘clearly contradict[ed]' by a video in the record.” Hernandez v. City of Gilbert, 989 F.3d 739, 743 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378-80 (2007)).
On July 26, 2017, just as the sun began to set, Officers Matt Schneider and Mark Lindsey were in together in their patrol vehicle when Officer Schneider told his partner Officer Lindsey that he witnessed a Ford Taurus turn into the parking lot of a Motel 6 without signaling. (Doc. 246-1 at 94.) The Officers observed the Taurus backed into a parking spot in the Motel 6 lot. (Id. at 95.) Officers Lindsey and Schneider parked and approached the vehicle on foot. (Doc. 246-1 at 96, Doc. 246 at ¶ 3, Doc. 35 at ¶ 13.) Johnny Wheatcroft was the front passenger seat of the vehicle, and Anya Chapman and minors J.W. and B.W. were in the back seat. (Doc. 35 at ¶ 14.) Officer Schneider approached the passenger side of the vehicle and spoke to the seated Wheatcroft through the open window. (Doc. 35 at ¶ 17, Doc. 246 at ¶ 19, Def. Ex. 9 (Schneider Body Camera (“SBC”)) at 0:39 [Redacted].) Officer Schneider asked Wheatcroft if he was staying at the Motel 6, and Wheatcroft responded, “Not yet, about to get a room.” (Doc. 246 at ¶ 19; Doc. 261 at ¶ 19, SBC at 0:42.) Officer Schneider asked if anyone had identification, and Wheatcroft responded “No.” (Doc. 246 at ¶ 20; Doc. 261 at ¶ 20, SBC at 0:51.) Officer Schneider then instructed the driver to use a turn signal when making a turn. (SBC at 0:52.) Schneider walked to the rear of the car to run the license plate, then returned to the passenger's side to talk to Wheatcroft again. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 21; Doc. 261 at ¶ 21.) When Officer Schneider asked Wheatcroft for his name, he refused to answer, and questioned why the Officer was asking him. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 22, Doc. 261 at ¶ 22, SBC at 1:42, 1:442:00.) Schneider then commanded Wheatcroft multiple times to stop reaching into the backpack at his feet and the space between his seat and the center console. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 24, Doc. 261 at ¶ 24, SBC at 1:42, 1:44.) The parties dispute whether Wheatcroft was accessing his backpack or the area between his seat and the center console at all. (See id.)
Meanwhile, Officer Lindsey spoke with the driver of the vehicle, who, it turns out, did not have identification or insurance, and was driving with a suspended license. (Doc. 246-1 at 96, 150.) Next, Wheatcroft told Officer Schneider that he did not have to provide his ID to the officer. (SBC at 1:58.) Officer Schneider told Wheatcroft he would take Wheatcroft down to the station and for fingerprinting, to which Wheatcroft responded “I didn't do anything wrong.” (SBC at 2:05.) Once again, Officer Schneider commanded Wheatcroft not to “stuff anything down between the seats.” (SBC at 2:25.) Wheatcroft denies that he was doing so. (Doc. 261, Pl. Statement of Facts ¶ 9.) Then, Officer Schneider opened the passenger door, and Wheatcroft put his right foot on the ground. (SBC at 2:25.) Officer Schneider grabbed Wheatcroft's upper right forearm with his left hand. (SBC at 2:26.) Officer Schneider unholstered his Taser and placed it between Wheatcroft's neck and shoulder, telling him to “relax your arm.” (SBC at 2:29-2:34.) Officer Schneider asked, “Are you going to fight or not?” Wheatcroft responded: “No, I promise you I'm not.” (SBC at 2:52.) Officer Schneider reholstered his Taser. (SBC at 2:54.) Around this time, Officer Fernandez arrived on the scene and Officer Lindsey gestured him over for assistance. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 47, Doc. 261 at ¶ 47.) Officer Lindsey came around to the passenger side area of the car to assist Officer Schneider. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 46.)
Officer Lindsey unholstered his Taser and told Wheatcroft “You've got a Taser on you right now.” (LBC at 3:01.) Wheatcroft began shouting profanities. (Id.) Schneider repeatedly commanded Wheatcroft to stop tensing up, but Wheatcroft verbally denied that he was. (SBC at 3:09.) Officer Lindsey then used his Taser in short drive stun mode capacity twice, for a total combined connection of 0.4 seconds. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 51 and 2462 at 51, Doc. 261 at ¶ 51.) Officer Lindsey used his Taser again in short drive stun mode for 0.2 seconds. (Doc. 246-2 at 51.)
At that point Anya Chapman, still in the back seat, grabbed a grocery bag full of soda cans and moved her upper body between the front two seats of the car, swinging the bag and hitting Officer Lindsey. (Doc. 246-1 at 176, 114, Doc. 246 ¶¶ 54-55.) Officer Lindsey fell onto his back on the pavement next to the car and was knocked unconscious for several minutes. (See LBC 3:19-4:08 (showing the sky).) Plaintiffs maintain that Officer Lindsey slipped and fell on a water bottle.[2] (Doc. 261 ¶¶ 54-55, Pl. Statement of Facts ¶ 37, Doc. 261-2 at 97.)
What happened next is highly disputed. The parties agree that Officer Schneider deployed his Taser at Wheatcroft-still in the passenger seat-in dart mode once but did not make a connection. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 58, Doc. 261 at ¶ 58.) Officer Fernandez also deployed his Taser for a total of 1.5 to 2 seconds, which made connection. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 67, Doc. 261 at ¶ 67.) At that point, Officer Fernandez handcuffed Wheatcroft and Officer Schneider drive stunned Wheatcroft's shoulder blade, but the parties dispute which happened first. (Doc. 246 at ¶¶ 71, 72, Doc. 261 at ¶¶ 71, 72, SBC at 3:40-4:17.) The Officers removed Wheatcroft from the vehicle, but his legs were tangled in the car's seatbelt. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 74, Doc. 261 at ¶ 74, SBC at 3:25-4:07.) One of Wheatcroft's minor children reached forward and unlatched the seatbelt. (SBC at 4:36.) The Officers laid Wheatcroft face down on the ground while Officer Fernandez applied his knee to Wheatcroft's back. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 76, Doc. 261 at ¶ 76, SBC 5:02.) The Officers claim that Wheatcroft began kicking his legs at Officers Schneider and Fernandez, causing Officer Schneider to command Wheatcroft to stop and kick him back. (See Doc. 246 at ¶¶ 77-80, SBC at 5:03-5:13.) Plaintiffs dispute all of this. (Doc. 261 at ¶¶ 77-80.) However, Officer Schneider's body camera clearly shows Wheatcroft's feet thrashing and kicking Officer Schneider, with Officer Schneider returning Wheatcroft's kicks.[3] (SBC at 4:58-5:10.) Next, Schneider used his Taser on Wheatcroft in drive stun mode. Plaintiffs assert that Officer Schneider pulled down Wheatcroft's shorts and Tased his testicles. (Doc. 261, Pl. Statement of Facts ¶ 48.) Defendants claim that Officer Schneider's body camera shows that the Tasing did not occur on Wheatcroft's genitals. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 83.)
Finally, Wheatcroft went limp and was arrested. (Doc. 246 at ¶ 87, Doc. 261 at ¶ 87.)
Later a grand jury indicted Wheatcroft for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest. (Doc. 246-3 at 21.) The County Attorney dismissed the charges without prejudice. (Doc. 245 at 8.)
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates “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). A genuine issue of material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, ” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255 (internal citations omitted); see also Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1994) (). That said, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
A party seeking to offer expert testimony must establish that the testimony satisfies Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial