Carroll v. Sisco, et al

Filing 228

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -- IT IS ORDERED: 1. The City of St. Louis' motion, 196 for summary judgment is granted. All claims against the City of St. Louis are dismissed. 2. The University City's motion, 203 for summary judgment is g ranted. All claims against University City and its officers are dismissed. 3. The St. Louis County defendant's motions, 190 and 193 , are granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. 4. The plaintiff's motion, 206 , to take judicial notice is denied. 5. Plaintiff's request, 211 , for a declaratory judgment is denied. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on 3/16/10. (KCM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

****************************************************************************** * GERALD R. CARROLL, 4:00-CV-864 * * Plaintiff, * MEMORANDUM OPINION * -vsAND ORDER * * MICHAEL SISCO, et aI., * * Defendants. * * ******************************************************************************
Plaintiff is a prisoner at the federal penitentiary in Greenville, Illinois. He instituted this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985, seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations in conjunction with his arrest on July 20, 1998, for an anned bank robbery in St. Louis, Missouri. I previously outlined plaintiffs claims, Doc. 121. Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint (1) that the officers effecting his arrest used excessive force, causing him pain, physical injury, and emotional distress; (2) that, as a result of the excessive use of force, those officers coerced him to make incriminating statements; (3) that those officers conspired to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights by using excessive force, turning in false police reports, and presenting false testimony before the Grand Jury, at the hearing on his motion to suppress, and at trial; (4) that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; (5) that he was subject to an illegal, one-man lineup at the scene of his arrest in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; (6) that he was subject to police interrogation after he requested to speak to an attorney; (7) that the municipal defendants had a pattern and practice of using excessive force; (8) that the supervisory defendants failed to train, supervise, and control the arresting officers; (9) and that the foregoing violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The second amended complaint, Doc. 68, names as defendants three entities and their law enforcement departments and officers: 1) the City of St. Louis, the st. Louis Police Department and its officers Dolan, Johnson, Leyshock, Henderson, and Hegger, 2) University City, its police department, its officer Fischer, and 3) St. Louis County and its officers Sisco, McCann, and Coleman. Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, Docs. 191 and 193 (St. Louis County defendants), 196 (City of St. Louis), and 203 (University City defendants). Plaintiffhas filed a motion to take judicial notice, Doc. 206, and a request for declaratory judgment, Doc. 211. The City of St. Louis individual defendants have not filed a motion for summary judgment.

DECISION
The summary judgment standard is well known in the Eighth Circuit. "Summary judgment is proper where the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Nooner v. Norris, F.3d _,20IOWL

424439 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648,654 (8th Cir.2007)

(quoting Hughes v. Stottlemyre, 454 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir.2006»). The moving party "bears
the burden of showing both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw." Nyari v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 916,920 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Singletary v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 423 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir. 2005». The United States Supreme Court has held that: The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of p r o o f at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of p r o o f concerning an essential element of t h e non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23,106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). "A material fac