White v. Dulany
| Decision Date | 21 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-04103-MDH |
| Parties | JAMES ROBERT WHITE, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN J. DULANY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Before the Court is Defendants Brian J. Dulany's, Robert Bias', Centralia Police Department's, and City of Centralia, Missouri's (“City”) (together “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 8). The only non-moving Defendant is Clint P. Baer. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The facts as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein. For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts these facts as true. On May 19 2019, Plaintiff was a resident of Centralia, Boone County Missouri, and was operating a 1993 Dodge Dakota pickup truck. That night, Plaintiff had driven his truck to a Casey's Convenience Store, located at 208 West Mo-22, Centralia, Missouri, to pick up his girlfriend, who was an employee at the Casey's Store and getting off of work. Plaintiff had allegedly previously been advised by his girlfriend that she was being stalked and harassed by a Centralia Police Officer by the name of Clint Baer, both at work and elsewhere, and that the acts of stalking and harassment been allegedly perpetrated by Baer while he was in police uniform, on duty, and also while Baer was operating a marked police vehicle. The alleged stalking and/or harassment perpetrated by Baer at Plaintiff's girlfriend's place of employment was allegedly noticed by the girlfriend's supervisor such that the girlfriend was told by her supervisor not to walk home after work.
The Centralia Police Department allegedly received a report of a vehicle traveling without headlights, taillights or any illumination at all. The report had allegedly been made much earlier in the night and the location of this alleged vehicle was a significant distance from the Casey's Store. Even so, Brian Dulany, who was on-duty that night as an Officer with the Centralia Police Department, saw Plaintiff's truck at Casey's and allegedly used the earlier call as an excuse to harass Plaintiff. Dulany allegedly parked his police vehicle a block or so away and across the street, near the La Crosse Lumber Store, in what he allegedly admitted was an attempt to conceal himself from Plaintiff and others and surveil Plaintiff. He then allegedly waited for Plaintiff and his girlfriend to leave the Casey's Store in Plaintiff's vehicle so that he could then confront them in a less conspicuous location.
Almost immediately after Plaintiff and his girlfriend left the convenience store and headed down Hickman Street, a residential street in Centralia, Dulany allegedly left his “hiding place” at the lumberyard, disregarded a stop sign, pulled in behind Plaintiff's vehicle, activated his emergency lights and pulled over Plaintiff's vehicle. Dulany's police car was equipped with a “Dash Camera” and the video from the “Dash Camera” allegedly clearly shows that the brake and turn signal lights on Plaintiff's vehicle were operable at the time he was pulled over by Dulany and also allegedly shows that Plaintiff almost immediately pulled over, in a safe and prudent manner.
Immediately upon pulling Plaintiff's vehicle over, Dulany allegedly used the spotlight on his police vehicle to flood the cab of Plaintiff's vehicle with light and to obscure the rearward vision of the vehicle's occupants. Although Dulany was wearing a body-worn camera, he did not turn the camera on until sometime after he initially made contact with Plaintiff. At that time, the body-worn camera captured some of the interaction between himself and Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff's girlfriend captured some of the events of May 19, 2019, on her cellphone.
Within a matter of seconds after Dulany pulled over Plaintiff, Clint Baer appeared on the scene. Plaintiff alleges that both Dulany and Baer can be seen acting in an overly aggressive manner toward Plaintiff and can also be heard yelling at Plaintiff, including a demand that Plaintiff get out of his vehicle. In particular, Dulany can allegedly be heard saying “[L]et me see your ass” on his body camera. Before turning on his body camera, Dulany can allegedly be seen on the “dash camera” placing his hand on the door handle of Plaintiff's truck multiple times and trying to open the door.
Plaintiff apparently inquired as to why he had been pulled over, but Delany and Baer allegedly refused to answer his question. Plaintiff then asked if a supervisor could be called to the scene. Dulany allegedly immediately responded that no supervisor was available and Dulany can allegedly then be seen on the dash camera placing his hand on his gun.
Dulany's body camera video and the “dash camera” also allegedly show that when Baer quickly arrived on the scene he almost immediately pulled and exhibited an electric shock device (commonly referred to and known as a “Taser”). Baer can then allegedly be seen deploying and exhibiting another weapon (i.e. a metallic, telescopic police baton).
At that point in the stop, Plaintiff allegedly rolled down his window and can be heard asking Dulany and Baer to calm down and again asking why he was being pulled over. When Dulany finally advised Plaintiff that the taillights on his truck were not working, Plaintiff began to produce his driver's license when Dulany allegedly suddenly and without warning reached into Plaintiff's vehicle, unlocked the door, opened it, and then violently drug Plaintiff from his vehicle. In the process of doing so, Dulany allegedly slammed Plaintiff to the pavement, after twisting one of Plaintiff's arms behind Plaintiff's back. At the time of these actions on the part of Delany, Plaintiff was allegedly attempting to comply with Delany's request for his driver's license while at the same time trying to de-escalate the situation. Plaintiff can also allegedly be heard on the dash camera repeatedly asking “[W]hat are you doing?”
After allegedly being violently slammed to the pavement by Dulany, Plaintiff can be heard complaining of the injury to his shoulder. Dulany can allegedly be heard instructing Plaintiff to “relax” and to “lay down.” Dulany can also allegedly be overheard telling Plaintiff at that time “[J]ust cooperate and I won't have to hurt you.”
After the injury to Plaintiff, Dulany and Baer then allegedly placed Plaintiff in very tight handcuffs and rolled him onto his injured shoulder. Dulany and Baer then picked him up off the pavement by the same injured shoulder. Plaintiff was instructed to get into Dulany's police vehicle. He complied with that request.
After allegedly dragging Plaintiff from his truck and throwing him violently to the pavement, where he was handcuffed, Dulany then issued Plaintiff a traffic ticket for an equipment violation wherein it was alleged that Plaintiff had violated Centralia City Ordinance 18-42 and he was released. Dulany can also be overheard stating that he was not going to cite Plaintiff for resisting arrest.
Plaintiff was allegedly later diagnosed with and treated for a full thickness tear of the rotator cuff on his injured shoulder as well as an extreme exacerbation of existing psychological injuries, including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. He also allegedly incurred other non-medical injuries and damages as set forth in more detail in his Complaint.
Plaintiff's Complaint advances both civil rights and state tort theories of recovery against Defendants. In particular, Plaintiff argues that Defendants Dulany and Baer unlawfully and without probable cause stopped Plaintiff's vehicle, detained him, seized his person, assaulted, and battered him. Plaintiff also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. Plaintiff also argues that the alleged constitutional violations were committed, as a result, of the policies and customs of the Police Department and the City. Plaintiff appears to request injunctive relief, declaratory relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. NEXTEP, LLC v. Kaba Benzing America, Inc., 2007 WL 4218977, *1 (E.D. Mo. 2007). When considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the factual allegations of a complaint are assumed true and are considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. This statement requires that the plaintiff give the defendant facts sufficient to give fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Id. The court may dismiss the complaint when it is clear that no relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the complaint. See id.
The Complaint alleges six Counts against Defendants. Count I purports to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful arrest and excessive force against Dulany and Baer. Count II alleges the same against the City and Centralia Police Department. Count III[1] and IV allege assault and battery respectively against Dulany, Centralia Police Department, and the City. Count V purports to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Dulany, Baer, Centralia Police Department, and the City. Finally, Count VI alleges negligent hiring, retention and supervision against Bias, the City, and Centralia Police Department.
To continue reading
Request your trial