White v. City of Birmingham
Decision Date | 27 March 2015 |
Docket Number | 2:13–CV–01006–KOB.,Case Nos. 2:13–CV–00099–KOB |
Citation | 96 F.Supp.3d 1260 |
Parties | Justin A. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. Latisha Williams, Plaintiff, v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
H. Gregory Harp, Harp Law LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.
Michael K.K. Choy, Elizabeth Bosquet Shirley, Kermit L. Kendrick, Richard R. Owens, Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.
REVISED MEMORANDUM OPINION
This § 1983 case comes before the court, in Plaintiffs Justin White and Latisha Williams' consolidated cases, on Defendants City of Birmingham, Alabama; Mayor William A. Bell; Officer Herman Harris, Jr.; and Officer Eric Smith's “Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Evidence,” (Doc. 34); White and Williams' “Motion to Strike Defendants' Exhibits Five (5) & Six (6),” (Doc. 43); White and Williams' “Motion for Judicial Notice,” (Doc. 44); and the Defendants' “Motion to Strike,” (Doc. 54).1
For the reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 34); GRANTS in part and DENIES in part White and Williams' motion for judicial notice, (Doc. 44); DENIES White and Williams' motion to strike, (Doc. 43); and DENIES the Defendants' motion to strike, (Doc. 54).
In general, the undisputed facts show that on November 30, 2012, plaintiff Williams and Deandre Major were passengers in a vehicle driven by plaintiff White. Defendants BPD Officers Harris and Smith heard a shot and Officer Smith believed an occupant of White's vehicle fired a weapon at the unmarked Birmingham Police Department vehicle driven by defendant BPD Officer Harris with defendant BPD Officer Smith and defendant Birmingham Mayor Bell as passengers. Officer Harris followed White's vehicle onto Interstate 59 while Officer Smith radioed for backup. As White raced down Interstate 59, his steering wheel locked up and he crashed. Officers Harris and Smith stopped near White's vehicle and attempted to apprehend the occupants of White's vehicle who Officers Harris and Smith thought to be armed and willing to shoot. Officers Harris and Smith fired their weapons a total of 19 times at the vehicle, hitting White twice and Williams once.2
Once Officers Harris and Smith regained control of the situation and backup arrived, ambulances transported White and Williams to the University of Alabama Birmingham medical center. White received treatment at UAB and remained at UAB for two weeks and a few days. Williams received treatment at UAB and UAB released her after two days. During part of their stays at UAB, BPD restrained White and Williams with handcuffs and posted BPD officers near their rooms.
White and Williams have now sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alabama state law, arguing that the City, Mayor Bell and Officers Harris and Smith violated their constitutional rights by using excessive force, and violated their rights under state law by assaulting, battering, and falsely imprisoning them. The Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all of White and Williams' claims. The court agrees with the Defendants because the Defendants are immune from suit on all of White and Williams' claims.
Before addressing the Defendants' summary judgment motion, however, the court must rule on several motions to determine the record before it for summary judgment purposes.
White and Williams request that the court take judicial notice of the following facts pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 :
(Doc. 44) (emphasis added). Generally, these items can be grouped into court documents (items 1, 2, 3, and 13), logical facts (items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), and news articles (items 9, 10, 11, and 12).
The court may take judicial notice when an adjudicative fact “is not subject to reasonable dispute” because the fact is either (1) “generally known within the trial court's jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201 ; see United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir.1994) ( ).
White and Williams request the court take judicial notice of certain court documents in items 1, 2, 3, and 13. The Defendants do not object. While the court “may not infer the truth of all the facts in the documents contained in [its own] records, the Court may take judicial notice of those records.” In re Steeley, 243 B.R. 421, 427 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1999) ; see Ackermann v. United States, 178 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir.1949).3 Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion as to the fact that the court documents exist and DENIES the motion as to the factual accuracy of the content of court documents.
White and Williams request the court take judicial notice of certain logical facts concerning dates and ages in items 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The Defendants do not object. Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion as to these logical facts.
White and Williams request the court take judicial notice that the news articles in items 9, 10, 11, and 12 were published. The Defendants argue that these items do not meet the requirements for judicial notice in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The court GRANTS the motion as to the fact that the news articles were published. However, the court DENIES the motion as to the factual accuracy of the news articles because the “facts” printed in the news articles are still subject to reasonable dispute. See Shahar v. Bowers, 120 F.3d 211, 214, nt. 5 (11th Cir.1997) (“[Movant] has shown us no case—and we have found none—where a federal court of appeals took judicial notice of the unofficial conduct of one person based upon newspaper accounts ... about that conduct.”). Additionally, the court DENIES the motion as to White and Williams' characterization of the news articles. See In re Towne Servs., Inc. Sec. Litig., 184 F.Supp.2d 1308, 1318 (N.D.Ga.2001) ( ).
In summary, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part White and Williams' motion for judicial notice.
White and Williams ask the court to strike exhibits five and six to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Exhibit five is Williams' statement to BPD Investigator Jeff Steele on December 1, 2012 at 10:31 a.m. at UAB describing the events of November 30, 2012 leading up to and after White and Williams' encounter with BPD. (Doc. 36–5). Exhibit six is a declaration by Investigator Steele describing the procedures he took during and after his interview with Williams. (Doc. 36–6).
Whether to grant a motion to strike is an evidentiary ruling within the court's discretion. See United States v. Stout, 667 F.2d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir.1982) . For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES White and Williams' motion to strike.
White and Williams first argue that Williams' statement should be excluded because she was a minor under the influence of medication when she gave the statement to Investigator Steele. First, whether Williams was a minor when she made her statement is irrelevant. “Every person is competent to be a witness unless [the Federal Rules of Evidence] provide otherwise.” Fed.R.Evid. 601 ; see United States v. Perez, 526 F.2d 859, 865 (5th Cir.1976) ().
Second, whether Williams was medicated does not render...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bogus v. City of Birmingham
...within the scope of their employment, but not intentional torts of its employees."); see also White v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 96 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1296 (N.D.Ala. March 27, 2015). 13. In Section VII, the court will briefly identify the surviving claims that Bogus may have. Bogus may objec......
-
Holley v. Town of Camp Hill
...F. App'x 949, 951 (11th Cir. 2007) ; Mercado v. City of Orlando , 407 F.3d 1152, 1162 (11th Cir. 2005) ; White v. City of Birmingham , 96 F.Supp.3d 1260, 1282–84 (N.D. Ala. 2015).11 Camp Hill relies on this line of cases, arguing that because Holley does not identify more than one arrest in......
-
Underwood v. City of Bessemer, Case No.: 2:15-cv-01585-JHE
...authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate qualified immunity is inappropriate. White v. City of Birmingham, 96 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1285 (N.D. Ala. 2015). To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, the court asks two questions: (1) "Taken in the light most favor......
-
Williams v. City of Birmingham
...could have involved any number of actions—shooting, punching, placing someone in a choke-hold, etc."); White v. City of Birmingham , 96 F.Supp.3d 1260, 1283–84 (N.D. Ala. 2015) (two incidents in which an officer allegedly struck a suspect without justification and the certification of a cla......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 47. November 23, 2019
...al., Authenticating Digital Evidence, 69 Baylor L. Rev. 1, 28 (2017) (footnotes omitted). See also White v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 96 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1274 (N.D. Ala. 2015), as amended (website ‘‘news articles are analogous to traditional paper articles and could be found self-authentic......