Brooks v. The City of St. Louis et al

Filing 153

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Clarity of the Courts Ruling and Motion to Reconsider the Denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by Defendant Kent Menning (ECF No. 151) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 07/15/2019. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CECILIA PERRY, as Plaintiff Ad Litem for
Christina Brooks, and D.B., D.B., D.B., and D.B.,
by and through their Next Friend,
CECILIA PERRY, on behalf of all
beneficiaries pursuant to Section 537.080,
Mo. Rev. Stat.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17CV981 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Clarity of the Court’s Ruling and
Motion to Reconsider the Denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by Defendant Kent
Menning. (“Motion,” ECF No. 151)
The Court grants the Motion, in part, as to the request for clarity. The Court included a
qualified immunity analysis concerning Menning in its July 1, 2019 Memorandum and Order
because the parties had fully briefed the issue. No ambiguity was intended. As the parties have
conceded, and the Court has repeatedly noted, the only claim Plaintiff has asserted against
Menning is common law negligence. (ECF No. 143, at 1 n.2; ECF No. 148, at 6)
Menning asks the Court to reconsider its ruling that he was not entitled to summary
judgment. Menning has not offered a good reason for the Court to reconsider its denial. As the
Court explained in its July 1, 2019 Memorandum and Order, the Court must view the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in her
favor. Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 331 (1986). The Court’s function at the summary

judgment stage is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “Credibility determinations,
the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury
functions, not those of a judge.” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.
2011) (emphasis added) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
(2000)).
Here, Menning has forcefully maintained he recalls his interactions regarding the
decedent, DeJuan Brison, and denies that Jermanda Adams informed him that Brison was on
“close observation” at the time of his transfer or had recently been on full suicide watch.
(Menning Dep. 68: 17-69:6; 71: 19-72:24) Adams, despite admitting to not remembering her
interactions with Brison, nevertheless testified that she would have orally informed Menning that
Brison was on close observation if Brison was on a crisis watch status at the time of his transfer.
(Adams Dep. 7: 18-8: l; 45:22-48: 16) This dispute is a credibility determination that the Court
cannot make at the summary judgment stage. Consequently, the Court reaffirms that this
decision is properly for a jury to decide and denies the motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Clarity of the Court’s Ruling and
Motion to Reconsider the Denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by Defendant Kent
Menning (ECF No. 151) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Dated this 15th day of July, 2019.

_________________________________
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-