Willis v. City of Hattiesburg

• Decision Date: 18 October 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-89-KS-MTP
• Parties: SANDRA WILLIS et al. PLAINTIFFS v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI et al. DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

SANDRA WILLIS et al. PLAINTIFFS v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI et al. DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-89-KS-MTP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

October 18, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [167], Motion for Summary Judgment as to Issue Preclusion Related to the County Court's Final Judgment ("Motion for Preclusion") [168], Motion to Correct Scrivener's Error [173], Motion to Strike Answer and Affirmative Defenses and Enter Judgment as to Liability ("Motion to Strike") [171], and Motion in Limine [196] filed by Plaintiffs Sandra Willis, David Knight, Charmaine Willis, Desmond Earl, Gregg Glass, and Deangelo Wilkerson, and the Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Rochelle McGee-Cobbs ("Motion to Exclude") [184] and Motion in Limine [207] filed by Defendants City of Hattiesburg, Frazier Bolton, Scott Morris, Jason Reed, Stephon Harris, and Johnny DuPree. After considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds the following:

1. the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [167] should be denied;

2. the Motion for Preclusion [168] should be denied;

3. the Motion to Correct Scrivener's Error [173] should be granted;

4. the Motion to Strike [171] should be denied;

5. the Motion to Exclude [184] should be granted;

6. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine [196] should be granted; and

7. Defendants' Motion in Limine [207] should be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sandra Willis, David Knight, Charmaine Willis, Desmond Earl, Gregg Glass, and Deangelo Wilkerson (collectively "Plaintiffs") bring this action against Defendants City of Hattiesburg (the "City"), Frazier Bolton, in his official capacity as Hattiesburg Chief of Police ("Chief Bolton"), Officer Scott Morris ("Morris"), Officer Jason Reed ("Reed"), Lieutenant Stephon Harris ("Lt. Harris"), and Johnny DuPree, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Hattiesburg (collectively "Defendants"), in connection with a raid conducted on the Dynasty Hair Salon ("Dynasty") on June 14, 2013. Plaintiffs bring multiple federal and state claims against Defendants in connection with this raid, the pertinent facts of which are laid out below.

At approximately 7:30 P.M. on June 14, 2013, officers of the Hattiesburg Police Department's specialized Neighborhood Enhancement Team ("NET") and STRIKE team conducted a raid on Dynasty after receiving information of illegal activity being conducted there. Lt. Harris has supervisory authority over the NET and STRIKE teams. Plaintiffs claim that they were wrongfully searched, were victims of excessive force, and were unlawfully arrested during the raid. No warrant was ever obtained for this raid or any of the accompanying arrests.

Plaintiffs were charged with misdemeanors, and a trial on these charges was held in the Municipal Court of Hattiesburg, Mississippi (the "Municipal Court"). Plaintiffs were convicted in Municipal Court and appealed to the County Court of Forrest County, Mississippi (the "County Court"), where the Municipal Court's convictions were vacated and Plaintiffs were granted a trial de novo. Plaintiffs filed a motion to suppress, claiming that evidence obtained during the raid should be excluded because the officers did not have the right to search Dynasty, as the area searched was not open to the public, the officers had no warrant or consent, and there were no exigent circumstances. The County Court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. Finding insufficientproof to warrant convictions, the County Court dismissed the remaining charges pending against Plaintiffs.

In their motions, Plaintiffs ask that the Court enter partial summary judgment as to the issues of municipal liability, the illegality of the search, and whether Plaintiffs were engaged in illegal conduct. They also request that Defendants' answer and defenses be struck as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation and that evidence of the Municipal Court convictions be excluded from evidence at trial.

Defendants, in their motions, ask the Court to exclude Plaintiffs' police expert as her opinion contains only impermissible legal conclusions and request the exclusion from evidence a video dated October 17, 2013.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court is now ready to rule.

II. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [167][168]

A. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 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). "Where the burden of production at trial ultimately rests on the nonmovant, the movant must merely demonstrate an absence of evidentiary support in the record for the nonmovant's case." Cuadra v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The nonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. "An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action." Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Daniels v. City of Arlington, Tex.,246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001)). "An issue is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Cuadra, 626 F.3d at 812 (citation omitted).

B. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [167]

In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [167], Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant them summary judgment on the issue of municipal liability. Plaintiffs argue that, because Lt. Harris had final decisionmaking authority over the NET and STRIKE team, he was a final policymaker under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). To support their position, Plaintiffs point to the fact that Chief Bolton, an indisputable final policymaker, delegated Lt. Harris supervisory authority over the NET and STRIKE team consistent with the policy as laid out in the department manual and the fact the Lt. Harris' decisions concerning the NET and STRIKE team were never reviewed by Chief Bolton.

The evidence to which Plaintiffs point supports the conclusion that Lt. Harris had final decisionmaking authority over the NET and STRIKE team. Plaintiffs fail, however, to take into account "the difference between final decisionmaking authority and final policymaking authority, a distinction that [the Fifth Circuit] has recognized as fundamental . . . ." Bolton v. City of Dallas, Tex., 541 F.3d 545, 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 1241, 2147 (5th Cir. 1993)). "The distinction between final decisionmaker and final policymaker has its origin in two Supreme Court plurality opinions, Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986), and City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988)," both of which "concluded that discretion to exercise a particular function does not necessarily entail final policymaking authority over that function." Id. at 549 (citations omitted). When the actions of an official with decisionmaking authority "are constrained by policies not ofthat official's making, those policies, rather than the subordinate's departures from them, are the act of the municipality." Id. (quoting Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127, 108 S. Ct. 915).

The fact that an official's decision is final and not subject to review does not "automatically lend it the character of a policy." Id. at 550 (citations omitted). In fact, the Fifth Circuit has explicitly "rejected the line of authority . . . which would permit policy or custom to be attributed to the city itself by attribution to any and all officers endowed with final or supervisory power or authority." Id. at 549-50 (quoting Jett, 7 F.3d at 1248) (alteration in original).

Though their evidence supports the fact that he had final decisionmaking authority, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Lt. Harris' authority was not constrained by policy promulgated by Chief Bolton and/or the City. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Lt. Harris had final policymaking authority, and their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [167] must be denied.¹

C. Motion for Preclusion [168]

In their Motion for Preclusion [168], Plaintiffs ask for summary judgment on the issue of whether the search conducted by the Defendants was legal and the issue of whether Plaintiffs were engaged in illegal conduct. The County Court ruled that the search was illegal and sustained Plaintiffs' motion to suppress in the criminal case brought against them in state court. Because insufficient evidence for a conviction remained, the County Court dismissed the charges against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that the legality of the search and whether they engaged in illegal conduct have been fully litigated and that Defendants are precluded from relitigating them.

Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel "applies to prevent issues of ultimate factfrom being relitigated between the same parties in a future lawsuit if those issues have once been determined by a valid and final judgment." Vines v. Univ. of La. at Monroe, 398 F.3d 700, 705 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "Collateral estoppel prevents litigation of an issue when: (1) the identical issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; and (3) the previous determination was necessary to the decision." Bradberry v. Jefferson Cnty., Tex., 732 F.3d 540, 548 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotations omitted). "While complete identity of all parties is not...