Watts v. City of Opelika, Alabama et al

Filing 50

PRETRIAL ORDER: Jury Selection and Jury Trial, which is to last two days, are set for 1/4/2016 10:00 AM in Opelika, Alabama before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson, as further set out in order; Trial Brief due by 12/21/2015; All deadlines not other wise affected by this order will remain as set forth in the uniform scheduling order (doc. no. 16 ) entered by the court on December 20, 2013 (as modified by subsequent orders), as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/24/2015. (furn: AG, Calendar)(kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

CALVIN WATTS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA COMBS,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13cv742-MHT
(WO)

PRETRIAL ORDER
A

Pretrial

Hearing

was

held

in

this

case

on

November 23, 2015, wherein the following proceedings
were held and actions taken:
1.

PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL:

Wallace D. Mills, Plaintiff’s counsel
Randall

Morgan,

Defendants

City

of

Opelika

and

Joshua Combs’ counsel
Elizabeth

Brannen

Carter,

Defendants

City

of

Opelika and Joshua Combs’ counsel
Rick A. Howard, Defendant Thomas Mangham’s counsel
April
counsel

Willis

McKay,

Defendant

Thomas

Mangham’s

COUNSEL APPEARING AT PRETRIAL HEARING:
Wallace D. Mills, Plaintiff’s counsel
Randall Morgan, Defendant Joshua Combs’ counsel
Elizabeth Brannen Carter, Defendant Joshua Combs’
counsel
2.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
3.
The

PLEADINGS:

pleadings

in

this

case

consist

of

the

following:
a.

Complaint, filed October 11, 2013

[Doc 1].
b.

Answer,

filed

for

Defendant

Mangham November 18, 2013 [Doc. 11];
Answer,

filed

by

Defendants

City

of

Opelika and Joshua Combs November 21, 2013
[Doc. 13].
4.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
2

(a) Plaintiff:
On or about October 9, 2011, Opelika City Police,
including Joshua Combs, attempted to initiate a traffic
stop

on

panicked,

Calvin
got

Watts

in

scared,

Opelika

and

failed

officers’ lights and siren.

Alabama.
to

Plaintiff

yield

to

police

Plaintiff drove to a dead

end street, get out of his car and attempted to flee on
foot into the underbrush.

Defendant Joshua combs tackled

Calvin Watts from behind causing Plaintiff to land face
down in the sand.

Defendant Combs got on Plaintiff’s

back pinning Plaintiff’s arms beneath him. After having
taken Plaintiff into custody, and while atop Plaintiff
and holding him down with his arms pinned beneath him and
his

face

turned

sideways,

Defendant

Combs

hit

Calvin

Watts in the face with his fist and/or elbow multiple
times

fracturing

Plaintiff’s

face,

jaw,

and

causing lacerations and bruising to the same.

nose

and

Defendant

Combs also “kicked” Plaintiff in the ribs with his knee.
Plaintiff

was

not

resisting
3

Plaintiff’s

continuing

custody

at

required

the

to

time

he

undergo

was

beaten.

Plaintiff

reconstructive

surgery

and

was
the

installation of a metal plate to repair his injuries.
Defendant Combs violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
right not to subject to excessive force in an arrest by
police.
was
were

At the time of the beating, Plaintiff’s right

clearly

established

objectively

officer

on

the

and

Defendant

unreasonable;
scene

would

a

have

Combs’s

actions

reasonable

police

known

that

hitting

Plaintiff about the head and face with his fist with
sufficient force to break the orbital bone in his face
his nose, and kneeing him in the ribs with sufficient
force to break them while the Plaintiff was pinned face
down on the ground and not resisting was a constitutional
violation.

A reasonable police officer would not have

used such force under the circumstances.
Defendant

Combs

assaulted

and

battered

Plaintiff.

His actions in assaulting and battering Plaintiff were
willful, malicious, and taken in bad faith, and beyond
4

his authority as a municipal police officer.
Combs’s

actions

demonstrate

neglect,

Defendant

carelessness,

unskillfulness.
(b) Defendant:
Officer Joshua Combs denies the allegations made
against him.
during

the

necessary
objected
summary

Officer Combs avers that any force used
subject

under
to

the

the

judgment

incident

was

circumstances.

Magistrate’s
be

reasonable

denied

him

force and assault/battery claims.

Officer

and
Combs

recommendation
as

to

the

that

excessive

The claims against

Officer Combs are barred because Plaintiff entered a
Plea Agreement regarding his criminal charges and in
doing so waived any civil claims he may have against
the City or Officer Combs.

Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S.

386 (1987) controls the facts and law of this case and
provides

the

analysis

that

should

be

applied

to

determine if the Plea Waiver Agreement is enforceable.
Plaintiff voluntarily entered the agreement and public
5

or

interest

is

Agreement.

served

by

enforcing

the

Plea

Waiver

Officer Combs had the right to rely on

Plaintiff’s representation of waiver of civil claims
during the plea agreement that was executed under the
supervision of a judge.

Plaintiff waived all civil

claims as a matter of law and any claims made against
Officer Combs should be dismissed as a matter of law.
Officer

Combs

is

otherwise

due

to

be

afforded

qualified immunity for the excessive force claim and
state agent immunity and immunity pursuant to §6-5-338,
Ala. Code (1975) for the assault and battery claim.
Officer Combs did not engage in any force that was not
necessary to effectuate the arrest of Plaintiff who
fled

in

a

car

apprehended.
that

was

and

foot

before

he

was

finally

Officer Combs never engaged in conduct

clearly

constitutional

by

established

violation.

in

the

Plaintiff

law

as

a

demonstrated

resistive and combative behavior before the tackle that
would

be

objectively

perceived
6

by

any

reasonable

officer in the same situation as necessitating physical
force to effectuate the arrest.
to resisting arrest.

After he was cuffed, Plaintiff

received no injuries.
arguments

that

Plaintiff pled guilty

There are no facts or legal

support

a

finding

that

qualified

immunity or state agent immunity should be stripped
from Officer Combs.
Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Combs are barred
by the application of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).

Considering the facts as presented in state

criminal court, upon which Plaintiff based his plea,
Plaintiff’s criminal plea of guilty to the charge of
resisting arrest bars his claim of excessive force and
assault/battery claims here.
Plaintiff’s

claims

are

further

barred

because

Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.
judicata,

Officer Combs pleads release, res

collateral

estoppel,

issue

preclusion,

judicial estoppel, waiver, latches, assumption of the
7

risk and self-defense.

Officer Combs further alleges

Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and alleges that
Plaintiff’s

own

damages.

Officer

intervening,
alleged

actions

Combs

superseding

injuries.

objectively

contributed
also

avers

cause(s)

Officer

reasonable

to

based

to

Combs’
on

all

his

alleged

there

were

Plaintiff’s
actions

were

surrounding

circumstances he had to make the split-second decision
to use force to effectuate the arrest of Plaintiff.
Office Combs acted in good faith and in the confines of
federal and state law.
and

justification.

Office Combs pleads privilege

Officer

Combs

contest

damages,

denies the nature/extent/cause of Plaintiff’s alleged
damages and alleges Plaintiff failed to mitigate his
damages.
5.

Stipulations

None.
* * *
It is ORDERED that:
8

(1) The jury selection and trial of this cause,
which is to last two days, are set for January 4, 2016,
at

10:00

a.m.

at

the

United

States

Courthouse

in

Opelika, Alabama;
(2) A trial docket will be mailed to counsel for
each party approximately two weeks prior to the start
of the trial term;
(3) Each party shall have available at the time of
trial, for use by the court (the judge, the courtroom
deputy clerk, and the law clerk), three copies of the
exhibit list and a sufficient number of copies of each
photostatically

reproducible

exhibit

for

opposing

counsel, the courtroom deputy clerk, the law clerk, the
jurors,

and

the

judge

to

each

have

a

set

of

the

exhibits;
(4) Trial briefs ((a) summarizing the evidence to
be presented at trial, (b) setting forth the elements
of each and every claim and defense at issue and how
the evidence does or does not satisfy those elements,
9

and

(c)

addressing

any

evidentiary

issues

that

may

arise at trial) are required to be filed by December
21, 2015;
(5) All deadlines not otherwise affected by this
order

will

remain

as

set

forth

in

the

uniform

scheduling order (doc. no. 16) entered by the court on
December 20, 2013 (as modified by subsequent orders);
and
(6) All understandings, agreements, deadlines, and
stipulations contained in this pretrial order shall be
binding on all parties unless this order be hereafter
modified by order of the court.
DONE, this the 24th day of November, 2015.
_ /s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE