Tessa Childress v. City of Charleston Police

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999673325-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cv-01225-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999900066]. Mailed to: Tessa Childress. [15-2084]

Appeal: 15-2084

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2084

TESSA R R G C CHILDRESS, a/k/a Tessa Rani Raybourne Gibson
Carlisle Childress, filed as Tessa Rani Raybourne Gibson
Carlisle Childress,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; LIEUTENANT CHITO T.
WALKER; OFFICER SANDERS; OFFICER KOEGLER; SERGEANT RATLIFF;
D-O WILSON; D-O DALLAS; D-O GANT,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:13-cv-01225-DCN)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

July 29, 2016

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Tessa R R G C Childress, Appellant Pro Se.
Christopher Thomas
Dorsel, Sandra J. Senn, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2084

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Tessa Rani Raybourne Gibson Carlisle Childress appeals the
district court’s order adopting in part and rejecting in part
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary
judgment to Defendants in her civil rights action.

Childress

asserts on appeal that the district court reversibly erred in
granting summary judgment to Defendants on her claim challenging
her placement in emergency protective custody and in granting
summary judgment to Defendant Ratliff on her claim against him
in his personal capacity for excessive force.
We

review

judgment,

de

novo

“viewing

the

a

district

facts

and

court’s

inferences

award

of

summary

reasonably

drawn

therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Core

Commc’ns,

Inc.

(4th Cir. 2014).

v.

Verizon

Md.

LLC,

744

F.3d

310,

320

“A summary judgment award is appropriate only

when the record shows ‘that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter

of

law.’”

The relevant
evidence

Id.

inquiry

presents

(quoting

on
a

Fed.

summary

judgment

sufficient

R.

Civ.
is

disagreement

P.

56(a)).

“whether
to

the

require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).

2

Anderson v. Liberty

Appeal: 15-2084

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

After review of the record and Childress’ brief, we find no
reversible
judgment

error
on

emergency
ruling

in

the

Childress’

protective

for

the

district
claim

challenging

custody.

reasons

court’s

grant
her

Accordingly,

stated

by

the

of

summary

placement

we

affirm

district

in
that

court.

Childress v. City of Charleston Police Dep’t, No. 2:13-cv-01225DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 2015).
With

respect

to

the

district

court’s

grant

of

summary

judgment to Defendant Ratliff on Childress’ claim against him
for excessive force, we have reviewed the record and Childress’
brief

and

conclude

that

the

district

court

made

an

improper

credibility finding in determining that Ratliff was entitled to
qualified immunity.

The record contains Childress’ description

in her deposition testimony of Ratliff’s actions and demeanor in
connection with her placement in an ambulance.

The district

court’s conclusion that Ratliff was entitled to summary judgment
was

based

on

its

determinations

that

the

record

evidence

“reveal[ed] a much different account of the events that took
place” than were proffered in Childress’ deposition testimony
and was “entirely void” of any evidence from which a reasonable
jury

could

determine

against Childress.

that

Ratliff

employed

excessive

force

In reaching these determinations, however,

the district court failed to view the evidence at the summary
judgment

stage

in

the

light

most
3

favorable

to

non-movant

Appeal: 15-2084

Doc: 15

Childress.

Filed: 07/29/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

By failing to credit evidence that contradicted some

of its determinations, the district court improperly “weigh[ed]
the

evidence”

Ratliff.

and

resolved

a

disputed

matter

in

favor

of

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

“By weighing the evidence and reaching factual inferences
contrary

to

[Childress’]

competent

evidence,

the

[district

court] neglected to adhere to the fundamental principle that at
the

summary

drawn

in

judgment

favor

of

stage,

the

reasonable

nonmoving

134 S. Ct. 1861, 1868 (2014).

inferences

party.”

Tolan

should
v.

be

Cotton,

Applying that principle here, the

district court should have credited Childress’ testimony about
Ratliff’s demeanor and actions in connection with her placement
in the ambulance and considered that evidence along with all
other facts and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to Childress to determine whether Ratliff
acted unreasonably.

Vacatur of this portion of the district

court’s judgment and a remand is thus necessary so that the
court can make such a determination and further can determine
whether
judgment

Ratliff’s
stage

see Vathekan

v.

—

actions

—

violated

Prince

viewed
clearly

George’s

properly

at

established

Cnty.,

154

F.3d

the

summary

law.

Id.;

173,

179-80

(4th Cir. 1998) (reversing summary judgment where disputed facts
existed as to events surrounding use of force).

4

Appeal: 15-2084

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/29/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court’s
order finding Ratliff was entitled to qualified immunity and
remand for further proceedings in the district court.
the

remainder

Childress’

of

motion

the
to

district
appoint

court’s

counsel

and

judgment.
dispense

We affirm
We

deny

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

5