Williams v. Strickland, Civil Action No.: 9:15-cv-1118-PMD-MGB
| Decision Date | 31 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 9:15-cv-1118-PMD-MGB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Johnnie Williams, Plaintiff, v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland, Sgt. Walter Criddle, and Beaufort County Sheriff Office, Defendants. |
The plaintiff, Johnnie Williams ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland ("Strickland"), Cpl. Heroux ("Heroux"), Sgt. Walter Criddle ("Criddle"), and the Beaufort County Sheriff Office ("BCSO"), alleging, inter alia, that the above-captioned defendants used excessive force against him when they arrested him on the evening of June 29, 2012 in Beaufort, South Carolina. (Compl. at 2, Dkt. No. 1.) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case presents a federal question. Venue is proper because the events at issue occurred in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration.
On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant action against Strickland, Heroux, Criddle, and the BCSO,1 and on May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Strickland, Criddle, and the BCSO.2 (Dkt. Nos. 1, 14.) Strickland, Criddle, and the BCSO filed an Answer, followed by a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on June 24, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 30, 34.) On June 25, 2015, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Plaintiff was advised of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the defendants' Motion. (Dkt. No. 36.) After the court granted an extension of time to the Plaintiff, he filed a Response in Opposition to the defendants' Motion on the Pleadings, and a Declaration. (Dkt. Nos. 41, 42.)
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration. On January 15, 2016, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation which recommended that the BCSO, as a state agency, be dismissed from this action on the grounds that it was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and, to the extent the action had been filed against Strickland and Criddle in their official capacities, they likewise were entitled to Eleventh Amendmentimmunity. (Dkt. No. 44.) However, the undersigned recommended that the action be allowed to proceed against Strickland and Criddle in their individual capacities. (Id. at 6-7.)
On January 28, 2016, the District Court dismissed the BCSO from this action and dismissed the action against Strickland and Criddle insofar as it had alleged claims against them in their official capacities. (Dkt. No. 49). The Plaintiff's action remained against Strickland and Criddle (collectively, the "Defendants") in their individual capacities.
On March 14, 2016, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 57.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Plaintiff again was advised of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the Defendants' Motion. (Dkt. No. 58.) The Plaintiff timely responded with a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Defendants filed a Response thereto. (Dkt. Nos. 60, 61.) Thereafter, the Plaintiff requested that a subpoena be issued to the Medical University of South Carolina ("MUSC") so that he could obtain certain documents from MUSC relating to his hospitalization from May 23, 2013 to June 14, 2013, which was a result of the alleged use of excessive force by the Defendants. (Dkt. No. 43.) The court construed the Plaintiff's motion as one for a subpoena duces tecum, and granted the motion on July 1, 2016. (Dkt. No. 69.) Because the pro se Plaintiff had sought production of the documents after he filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, the court issued an order allowing the Plaintiff the opportunity to supplement his Motion, or file any further response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, by September 22, 2016. (Dkt. No. 86.) On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion. (Dkt. No. 90). Therefore, the case is ripe for review by the court.
The Plaintiff's Verified Amended Complaint states that on June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff, who lives in Savannah, and his six year old son were in Beaufort, South Carolina to attend a "family get together" at the Plaintiff's mother's home. (Am. Comp. at 4, Dkt. No. 14.) The Plaintiff stopped at a gas station and Anthony Ancrum asked Plaintiff "for a ride to his sister's apartment where he lived," and Plaintiff agreed. (Id.). The Plaintiff's son was sitting in the "passenger front seat," so Ancrum sat in the back seat of the vehicle. (Id.) The Plaintiff does not explain the events of that evening in any detail, except to state that "on this night I was doing a friend a favor, by giving [him] a ride home [to the Canal Apartments], and ended up shot in my back." (Id.) The Plaintiff alleges that he "almost died at the scene after waiting on [an] ambulance for almost 40 minutes." (Id.)
According to the Plaintiff, "the two employees of the Beaufort Sheriff['s] Office, Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland and Sgt. Walter Criddle" were "the two officers that fired the[ir] weapons into [Plaintiff's] car, hitting [Plaintiff] in [his] back." (Id. at 5.) He alleges he later found out that it "was the bullet" from Strickland's weapon that "struck [Plaintiff] in [his] back." (Id.). The Plaintiff alleges the injuries he received that night were "life threatening," and that when he arrived at Beaufort Memorial Hospital he was told that he "would have to be flown to [MUSC] to have emergency surgery to remove the . . . bullet that was still in [his] stomach." (Id.). After he arrived at MUSC, he had to have numerous surgeries and other procedures to save his life, and he was put in a medically-induced coma on June 30, 2012.3 (Id.). The Plaintiffalleges that "[a]s a result of this unwarranted[] and brutal attack," he "sustained extensive damage to [his] stomach." (Id. at 6.) The Plaintiff, who was forty years of age at the time of the incident, claims that his doctor told him he would not be able to work again; he has since been awarded Social Security disability benefits. (Id.)
The Plaintiff alleges he again was hospitalized from April 23, 2013 until June 14, 2013 due to complications from his gunshot wound. (Id.) In the "Relief" section of his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that he has filed this action "for a monetary recovery for violating [his] constitutional rights (excessive force)." (Id. at 7.) The Plaintiff seeks an award of damages for his pain and suffering and his "constant medical attention," and also seeks punitive damages. (Id.)
Strickland, Heroux, and Criddle (the "Officers") were assigned to the Beaufort/Jasper Multi-Agency Drug Task Force and were working on the evening of June 29, 2012. (See SLED Investigative Rep., Dkt. No. 57-5 at 5.) Criddle and Strickland were riding together in a black Chevrolet unmarked patrol car. (See SLED Investigative Rep.(Strickland Statement), Dkt. No. 57-5 at 7.) It is not known to the court whether Heroux was in an unmarked vehicle, or whether any of the Officers were in uniform.
At around 9:00 p.m. on June 29, 2012, Heroux saw a 1991 white four door Cadillac Deville with a Georgia license tag in the area of Highway 21 and Highway 170. (Heroux Aff. ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 57-3; SLED Investigative Rep. at 5, Dkt. No. 57-5.) Heroux ran the Georgia tag through Beaufort County Dispatch, learned that the tag had been stolen, and so advised Criddle,who was riding with Strickland in a car ahead of Heroux. (Heroux Aff. ¶¶ 4-5; Criddle Aff. ¶¶ 4-5, Dkt. No. 57-2.) Criddle told Heroux to stop the Cadillac, and Heroux followed the car onto Salem Road. (Heroux Aff. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Cadillac turned into the Canal Apartments. (Heroux Aff. ¶ 9; Criddle Aff. ¶ 7; Strickland Aff. ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 57-4.) Heroux followed the Cadillac into the apartment complex and activated his blue lights and siren; the Cadillac stopped between the first and second buildings on the left. (Heroux Aff. ¶ 10; Strickland Aff. ¶¶ 8-9.) Heroux got out of his car and walked to the front of it, but the Cadillac drove off toward the rear of the apartment complex. (Heroux ¶¶ 11-12.)
Heroux got back into his patrol car and followed the Cadillac until it stopped in a parking space; Heroux stopped his car near the Cadillac and approached the driver's door. (Heroux ¶¶ 13-15). Strickland and Criddle arrived at the scene and got out of their vehicle. (Criddle Aff. ¶ 10; Strickland Aff. ¶ 10.) When Heroux was about ten feet away from the Cadillac, the driver of that car looked at Heroux, turned the front wheels to the right, and backed up at a high rate of speed, which caused the front end of the Cadillac to "violently whip around in [Heroux's] direction." (Heroux Aff. ¶¶ 16-17; Criddle Aff. ¶ 10.) Heroux backed up towards the front tire area of his car, and he "believed by the driver's actions that he tried to kill me with his car." (Heroux Aff. ¶¶ 18-19.) By the time Heroux got to his vehicle, the Cadillac's front bumper passed within about an inch from the driver's side front bumper of Heroux's car. (Heroux Aff. ¶ 20.) Then, the Cadillac backed up and positioned itself head to head with Heroux's car, about ten feet away, but offset to the right of Heroux's car. (Heroux Aff. ¶ 21.)
By this time, Heroux had drawn his duty weapon and began to approach the...
To continue reading
Request your trial