Appleby v. Georgia Department of Public Safety et al
Filing
81
OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 74] and denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 68]. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 8/12/14. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
PATRICE W. APPLEBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:13-CV-1334-TWT
TROOPER WILLIAM WEST
DPS AGENT,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se civil rights action claiming that the Defendant State Trooper
falsely arrested and used excessive force against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was
arrested after she was pulled over for speeding and refused to sign the citation with
anything but a red pen, and then got into an argument with the Defendant. The Court
concludes that the Defendant is protected by qualified immunity.
I. Background
At around noon on July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff Patrice Appleby was driving on
Highway 19 in Mitchell County, Georgia.1 The Plaintiff was pulled over by the
1
Am. Compl. ¶ 10.
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
Defendant, Trooper William West, for speeding.2 The Defendant issued the Plaintiff
a citation, and the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that she needed to sign it with a
red pen.3 The Plaintiff wished to use a red pen because, after being a victim of identity
theft in 2007, she “made a decision to sign all official, original documents with a red
signature as part of a larger plan to protect her signature and identity from future
abuses.”4 When informed that she could not use a red pen, the Plaintiff told the
Defendant that “she would need to call her husband to ask what to do if she could not
sign her signature in red ink.”5 The Defendant instructed the Plaintiff not to use her
cell phone during the traffic stop but the Plaintiff continued to attempt to make a call.6
After being asked again to put her cell phone down, the Plaintiff told the Defendant
she did not have a gun.7 When the Plaintiff again refused to put her cell phone down,
the Defendant informed her she was under arrest and asked her to step out of the
vehicle.8 The Plaintiff refused to exit her vehicle and reached for her purse. At this
2
Am. Compl. ¶ 11.
3
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.
4
Am. Compl. ¶ 26.
5
Am. Compl. ¶ 17.
6
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A ¶¶ 28-30.
7
Id.
8
Id. ¶¶ 32-33.
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-2-
point, the Defendant pulled the Plaintiff from her car, put her face down on the road,
and handcuffed her.9 The Plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries during this process.10
Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant move for summary judgment. The Plaintiff
contends she is entitled to summary judgment on her claims for false arrest and the use
of excessive force. The Defendant contends he is entitled to summary judgment
because he is protected by qualified immunity, and because he nevertheless had
probable cause to make the arrest and used de minimis force.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits submitted by the parties show that no genuine issue of material fact exists
and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.11 The court should view
the evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant.12 The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds that
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.13 The burden then shifts to the
9
Id. ¶¶ 31, 38-40.
10
Am. Compl. ¶ 21.
11
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
12
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).
13
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-3-
nonmovant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to
show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.14 “A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence
supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be a sufficient
showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”15
III. Discussion
The parties essentially seek summary judgment in their favor with respect to
both of the Plaintiff’s claims. Because the Court concludes that the Defendant is
entitled to qualified immunity, it need not address the specific claims, and the
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
Qualified immunity exempts an officer from section 1983 liability under certain
circumstances.16 To receive qualified immunity, the officer “must first prove that he
was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful
acts occurred.”17 Here, the Defendant was acting in his discretionary authority when
he was patrolling the public roads as a Georgia State Trooper, including when he
14
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
15
Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990).
16
See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).
17
Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-4-
made arrests while on patrol.18 Because the Defendant was acting within his
discretionary authority, the Plaintiff has the burden of showing that qualified
immunity is not appropriate.19 She must show that the constitutional rights the
Defendant allegedly violated were “clearly established.”20 For this, “[t]he contours of
the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that
what he is doing violates that right.”21 In the context of a false arrest, the Court must
inquire whether reasonable officers in the same circumstances would have believed
they had probable cause to arrest.22
Here, even accepting all of the Plaintiff’s facts as true, there is no indication that
the Defendant violated any of the Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights
when he arrested her. First, the Defendant had arguable probable cause to arrest the
Plaintiff based on her speeding violation. In the Eleventh Circuit, probable cause to
stop an offender for a traffic violation translates into probable cause to arrest the
18
See O.C.G.A. §§ 35-2-32, 35-2-33; Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d
1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004).
19
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
20
See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.
21
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).
22
Kingsland, 382 F.3d at 1233.
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-5-
offender for that violation.23 Thus, the Defendant did not violate the Plaintiff’s clearly
established constitutional rights when he arrested the Plaintiff for speeding.
Further, the Defendant also had arguable probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff
for obstruction of justice. Georgia law prohibits knowingly obstructing or hindering
any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties.24 The
Plaintiff refused to sign her citation for speeding without a red pen. She attempted to
use her cell phone to call her husband and ask what she should do in the absence of
a red pen. The Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to end the call, and the Plaintiff
refused to do so, and continued to use her cell phone despite the Defendant’s request.
Then the Plaintiff mentioned a weapon and, when the Defendant asked the Plaintiff
to step out of the car, the Plaintiff refused and reached for her purse. The Court
concludes that a reasonable officer could have concluded that the Plaintiff was
obstructing justice when she refused to sign the citation because she did not have a red
pen and when she failed to get out of her car as directed during the traffic stop. Thus,
the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiff’s false arrest claim
because a reasonable officer would have concluded he had probable cause to arrest the
Plaintiff for either the speeding violation or for obstruction of justice.
23
Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2004).
24
See O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(a).
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-6-
The Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiff’s claim of
excessive force. In general, the “Fourth Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures encompasses the plain right to be free from the use of excessive
force in the course of an arrest.”25 In assessing whether an application of force was
excessive, the court considers “(1) the need for the application of force, (2) the
relationship between the need and amount of force used, and (3) the extent of the
injury inflicted.”26
Here, the Plaintiff cannot show that every reasonable officer in the Defendant’s
position would have considered his use of force unlawful.27 The Defendant’s evidence
shows that the Plaintiff was behaving erratically by demanding a red pen to sign the
ticket, being argumentative by refusing to sign and attempting to make a phone call,
and by referencing a weapon and attempting to access her purse. A reasonable officer
could have concluded that the Defendant’s application of force was necessary to
secure the Plaintiff and ensure the Defendant’s safety. Further, prior Eleventh Circuit
cases have accepted uses of force more severe than the force here, such as slamming
25
Draper, 369 F.3d at 1277.
26
Id. at 1277-78.
27
See Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2008).
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-7-
a suspect against a wall or a van or putting a suspect in a choke hold.28 Given these
cases, the Defendant could not have known that his use of force against the Plaintiff
violated her constitutional rights. Because a reasonable police officer could conclude
that the Defendant’s use of force in arresting the Plaintiff was not excessive, the
Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
The Defendant is thus entitled to qualified immunity from both the Plaintiff’s
false arrest claim and her excessive force claim. The Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment should be granted, and the Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 74] is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 68]
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 12 day of August, 2014.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
28
See Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2000) (slamming against
van); Jones v. City of Dothan, 121 F.3d 1456, 1460 (11th Cir. 1997) (slamming
against wall); Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1556-60 (11th Cir. 1993)
(choke hold).
T:\ORDERS\13\Appleby\msjtwt.wpd
-8-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?