Turner v. Logansport City of et al

Filing 43

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to defendants City of Logansport, the Cass County Sheriff's Department, Deputy Mark Van Horn, and Deputy David Wells and DENIED as to Kevin Pruitt. Party Mark Van Horn, David Wells, Cass County Sheriffs Dept and Logansport City of terminated. Attorney Ronald J Semler; James S Stephenson; James G Liwski and Michael R Morow terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 11/2/11. (smp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
WILLIAM TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LOGANSPORT, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:09 CV 381 PPS

OPINION AND ORDER
While William Turner was held at the Cass County jail for driving under the influence,
he had several run ins with the officers working in the jail that night, resulting in some serious
injuries. Turner sued the City of Logansport and the Cass County Sheriff’s Department, as well
as Deputy Sergeant Kevin Pruiett, Deputy Mark Van Horn, and Deputy David Wells all in their
individual capacities. He claims that excessive force was used against him in violation of his
Fourth Amendment. (DE 1, at 5-6.) All Defendants now seek summary judgment. (DE 36.)
Turner concedes that summary judgment is appropriate as to the City of Logansport, the
Cass County Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Mark Van Horn, and Deputy David Wells. The
motion is therefore granted as to those Defendants without further discussion. But for the
following reasons the motion will be denied as to Turner’s remaining claim against Sergeant
Pruiett.
Background
I’ll start with the facts, but will only focus on Turner’s remaining claim against Deputy
Pruiett. On April 26, 2008 Deputy Pruiett and Deputy Mark Van Horn pulled over Turner when
he was driving on the wrong side of the road in Logansport. (DE 39-1, Van Horn Aff. ¶ 2.; DE

39-1, Pruiett Aff. ¶ 3.) Turner, fifty-seven years old at the time, appeared intoxicated and smelled
of alcohol, and he admits that he’d been drinking. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 3.) After Turner failed a field
sobriety tests, Van Horn and Pruiett handcuffed him and took him to the Cass County Jail.
(Pruiett Aff. ¶ 3; Van Horn Aff. ¶ 2.)
Turner was first taken to a breathalyzer room in the jail, where Pruiett was to administer
a breath test to measure the alcohol content in Turner’s blood. The security camera footage
shows that Pruiett and Van Horn were both in the room along with Turner, and Turner was
handcuffed the entire time he was in that room. (DE 39-9, at 2:22:51.)
Turner initially followed Pruiett’s instruction to sit on the bench against the wall of the
room, but after sitting for a few seconds, Turner stood up and began speaking to the officers.
(Id. at 2:24:08.) Nothing about Turner’s actions appears threatening or menacing. Pruiett
appeared to respond to Turner and gestured towards the bench, but Turner continued standing.
(Id.) The parties dispute what Pruiett and Turner were saying to each other, but after about ten
seconds, Pruiett pushed Turner’s chest, and then pushed on his shoulders. (Id. at 2:24:18.)
Turner remained standing, and then Pruiett grabbed Turner and applied a knee strike to him. (Id.
at 2:24:20.) Turner, who remained handcuffed, was still standing after being kneed by Pruiett.
But then, while Pruiett had two hands on Turner’s left arm, Turner fell sideways onto the bench
he where he had been sitting, and his upper body and head hit a large office machine sitting at
the end of the bench. (Id. at 2:24:27.)
Pruiett next lifted Turner back up, still with both hands on Turner’s arm, and Pruiett
swung Turner in front of him and around back towards the bench, ending with Turner on his
back on the ground, having hit his head and back up against the bench and wall. (Id. at 2:24:30-

2

2:24:36.) Then Pruiett helped Turner back up onto the bench. (Van Horn Aff. ¶ 5.) Pruiett
administered the breathalyzer test, Turner failed, and he was processed into the jail for driving
while intoxicated. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 6.) Turner sustained additional injuries from altercations
between him and the officers in the processing room and padded cell, but Turner is no longer
pursuing those claims.
Discussion
Summary judgment is proper “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). On summary judgment, facts and inferences are construed in favor of the non-moving
party. Trentadue v. Redmon, 619 F.3d 648, 652 (7th Cir. 2010). But if no reasonable jury could
find for the nonmoving party, there is not a genuine issue of material fact. Van Antwerp v. City
of Peoria, Ill., 627 F.3d 295, 297 (7th Cir. 2010).
Section 1983 exists to protect citizens who have been deprived of a constitutional or
statutory right by persons acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage of any State.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must
show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citation omitted).
Turner’s excessive force claim against Pruiett arose while he was being processed at the
jail, so I analyze his claim under the Fourth Amendment. See Lopez v. City of Chicago, 464 F.3d
711, 718-19 (7th Cir. 2006) (“the Fourth Amendment governs the period of confinement
between arrest without a warrant and the preliminary hearing . . . .”). The question in a Fourth

3

Amendment excessive force case is “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in
light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent
or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). “Determining whether the force
used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful
balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment
interests’ against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Id. (quoting United States
v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983)). The inquiry is objective and fact intensive, requiring courts
to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, whether the
suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect
was actively resisting arrest. See Estate of Philips v. City of Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586, 592 (7th
Cir. 1997). At the summary judgment stage, after the court determines the relevant set of facts,
drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the ultimate conclusion as to the
reasonableness of an officer’s actions is a “pure question of law.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
381 n.8 (2007); see Pinkney v. Thomas, 583 F. Supp. 2d 970, 982 (N.D. Ind. 2008).
At the outset, I reject Pruiett’s argument that Turner’s response fell short of the
requirements of L.R. 56.1 requiring the response brief to include a “Statement of Genuine
Disputes” section that identifies the disputed material facts. Pruiett requests that I accept his
statement of facts as true because Turner’s reference to two pieces of evidence isn’t enough to
satisfy L.R. 56.1.
Turner’s response satisfied the local rule. He included a “Statement of Genuine Issues of
Material Fact” section where Turner states that the security video is “sufficient evidence by
which the jury could conclude that Deputy Pruiett used excessive force.” (DE 41, at 2.) Then he

4

cites portions of the video where Pruiett made physical contact with him as well as specific
portions of his deposition where Turner tried to recall what he was saying to Pruiett when he
stood up and where he described the physical encounter with Pruiett. Although Turner’s list of
evidence is not extensive, his citations to the video and deposition are specific enough to point
me to the relevant evidence, and they thereby satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and L.R. 56.1.
Setting the procedural issue aside, Pruiett argues that Turner’s evidence – the security
camera footage and Turner’s deposition testimony – don’t create an issue of fact as to Pruiett’s
liability for excessive force. According to Pruiett, because the video establishes all the relevant
facts in his favor, and Turner’s admission in his deposition that his memory of the night was
sketchy, I should find that he did not use excessive force as a matter of law. The problem with
this argument is that video footage does not established all the relevant facts. After closely
reviewing the video, I can identify at least three unresolved facts questions.
The footage undoubtedly provides the most accurate account of the altercation before me,
but because there is no sound and the footage provides a limited view of the incident, it lacks
certain key pieces of the puzzle. (DE 39-9, Pryor Aff. Ex. 3, at 2:22:51–2:26:45.) The
beginning of the footage shows Van Horn and Pruiett bringing Turner into the breathalyzer
room. Turner, handcuffed, sits at the end of a bench against the wall. (Id. at 2:22:51.) A
machine sits at the opposite end of the bench. At one point, Turner stands up and appears from
the video to be talking to the officers. Pruiett faces him, motioning towards the bench. (Id. at
2:24:08.) Because the footage doesn’t include sound, I don’t know what they were saying to
each other, or the tone of voice they used. Ten seconds after Turner rises to his feet, Pruiett
pushes him back against the wall with his right hand while Turner is still standing. Turner does

5

not sit back down, and Pruiett, holding Turner by the shoulder with his right hand and what
appears to be Turner’s arm with his left hand, pulls him away from the wall and strikes the side
of Turner’s body with his knee. (Id. at 2:24:20.) At this point, Pruiett’s body is blocking
Turner’s body from view. With Pruiett’s hands on Turner’s left arm, Turner begins to fall to
Pruiett’s right towards the machine at the end of the bench. While Pruiett’s hands are holding
Turner’s left arm, Turner falls into the machine. It’s not clear whether Turner’s legs give out
and he falls, or if Pruiett slams him against the machine. (Id. at 2:24:27.)
What appears to happen next is Pruiett pulls Turner up by his right arm, and swings
Turner 180 degrees back towards the bench. (Id. at 2:24:32.) At the end of the swing, Turner
falls against the wall and bench and hits his head up against either the wall or the bench. (Id. at
2:24:30-2:24:36.) Again, it’s unclear whether Turner tripped or Pruiett swung him with enough
force to take him off his feet and slam him into the bench and wall. Afterwards, Turner doesn’t
get up on his own; Pruiett pulls him back up on the bench.
The three unresolved facts are: 1) what were Pruiett and Turner saying to each other; 2)
whether Pruiett slammed Turner into the wall and machine, or Turner simply fell; and 3) whether
Pruiett swung Turner into the wall, or Turner just lost his footing and fell. These facts bear on
whether Pruiett employed excessive force. To be sure, Turner and Pruiett provide different
accounts regarding these facts, and to choose one sides’ version over the other would require me
to make credibility determinations which I cannot make at this point in the proceedings. Dorsey
v. St. Joseph County Jail Officials, 98 F.3d 1527, 1529-30 (7th Cir. 1996).
As to the conversation between Turner and Pruiett, while Turner remembers asking about
the charges against him, Pruiett’s position is that Turner was screaming and demanding to see his

6

girlfriend. Turner testified that while he was in the breathalyzer room, he stood up to ask about
his bond and charges. (Turner Dep. at 99.) He stated that he may have also asked about his
girlfriend, but he couldn’t remember definitively. (Id.) On the other hand, Pruiett and Van Horn
stated that Turner was shouting and demanding to see his girlfriend. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 5; Van Horn
Aff. ¶ 4.)
Exactly what Turner said to the officers sheds light on the threat Turner posed, a
contributing factor in the excessive force analysis. See Estate of Philips, 123 F.3d at 592. If
Turner was speaking to them only about the charges against him, the objective threat he
presented would be less than if Turner was demanding to see his girlfriend. The same is true of
Turner’s tone; if he was shouting, as Pruiett characterizes it, he’d be posing more of a threat than
if he was speaking in a conversational tone.
The next question the camera footage does not answer is whether Pruiett slammed Turner
into the bench or Turner fell. Turner states that it looks like he slammed him up against the
machine. (Turner Dep. at 101.) Pruiett and Van Horn state that while Pruiett was using
necessary tactics, Turner simply fell to his side and onto the machine. And he breaks down his
physical encounter with Turner in much greater detail than Turner. According to Pruiett, when
Turner stood up, he tried to get Turner to sit back down verbally, and when that did not work,
Pruiett pushed him back into a seated position in an attempt to get him back on the bench.
(Pruiett Aff. ¶ 5.) When Turner did not sit down, and, in Pruiett’s view, resisted and moved
forward, Pruiett used the physical tactic of a knee strike to make him sit. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 5.)
After that didn’t work, Pruiett pushed him against the wall and Turner began sliding to his right,
into the machine at the end of the bench. Pruiett specifically states that he didn’t push Turner

7

into the machine; Turner’s body stiffened and he simply slid into the machine. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 5.)
As mentioned, at this point in the video, Pruiett’s body is blocking Turner. We can’t see
Turner’s legs to know if they buckled. So it’s unclear whether Turner hit the machine because
his body stiffened and he fell or Pruiett pulls him over and that’s the force that causes him to hit
the machine. Certainly, whether Pruiett slammed Turner into a large piece of office equipment
contributes to the reasonableness of his force. A jury must resolve this factual dispute.
The third factual dispute is the final part of the physical encounter, where Turners ends
up on the floor, having hit his head and back against the bench and wall. According to Turner,
Pruiett swung him around and slammed him on the ground. (Turner Dep. at 103.) Turner states
that he remembers Pruiett having two hands on him, and that he hit the back of his head and back
on the wall. (Id.) In Pruiett’s version, Turner’s body remained stiff after he had hit the machine.
He states that he tried to pull Turner by the arm, but when he was unsuccessful, he began to spin
him around to get him up and back on the bench. According to Pruiett, once he spun Turner
back into the standing position, Turner’s legs split, his feet went out, and he ended up on the
floor. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 5; Van Horn Aff. ¶ 5.) So Pruiett’s testimony– which is directly contrary to
Turner’s – is that he never threw or pushed Turner down. (Pruiett Aff. ¶ 5.)
It is true, as Pruiett points out, that Turner’s memory is hazy, but when I consider his
testimony independent of his credibility, it directly contradicts Pruiett’s evidence. And the
camera footage doesn’t make it clear whether Turner’s unsteadiness caused the fall or Pruiett
used enough force to swing him off his feet and into the bench and wall. As this fact is relevant
to whether Pruiett’s force was excessive, a jury has to decide what happened.
In sum, to determine whose account of the incident is true, I would have to make a

8

credibility call, which is inappropriate. See Dorsey, 98 F.3d at 1529. A jury should have the
opportunity to evaluate the security video, Turner’s testimony, Pruiett’s testimony, and the
testimony of the officers supporting Pruiett’s position to decide the facts related to Turner’s
excessive force claim.
The same holds true as to Pruiett’s qualified immunity argument. The Supreme Court
has identified two key inquiries for assertions of qualified immunity: (1) whether the facts, taken
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendants violated a constitutional
right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged
violation. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201
(2001). The court may decide these questions in whatever order is best suited to the case at
hand. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 233. The first question is one of law, while the second requires a
broader inquiry.
Turner’s response did not address the qualified immunity defense to his excessive force
claim against Pruiett. But until a jury makes findings of fact on the disputed issues, I can’t
determine whether Pruiett violated a constitutional right.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as
to Defendants City of Logansport, the Cass County Sheriff’s Department, Deputy Mark Van
Horn, and Deputy David Wells, and DENIED as to Turner’s claim against Deputy Pruiett
arising from the incident in the breathalyzer room.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 2, 2011.

9

s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10