Christiansen et al v. West Valley City et al
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dismissing claims against Officers Beardshall and Lund. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 1/25/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
BRANDY CHRISTIANSEN and TERRY
CHRISTIANSEN,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
JOHN COYLE, STEVEN BEARDSHALL,
BARBARA LUND, SEAN MCCARTHY, and
DOES 1-10,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00025
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Brandy and Terry Christiansen bring this action against defendants John Coyle, Steven
Beardshall, Barbara Lund, and Sean McCarthy claiming a violation of their civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Officers Beardshall and Lund moved for summary judgment as to the claims
against them on the basis of qualified immunity. (Docket 44). After a defense of qualified
immunity has been raised, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff. However, Plaintiffs filed no
response to the motion for summary judgment and the time to do so has expired. By failing to
file an opposition to the motion or raise any genuine dispute of material fact, Plaintiffs failed to
meet their burden. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Officer Beardshall’s and Officer Lund’s
motion for summary judgment as to the claims against them.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As noted above, Plaintiffs filed no response to the motion for summary judgment. The
facts as presented by Officers Beardshall and Lund in their memorandum are deemed undisputed
pursuant to the court’s local rules. See DUCiv 56-1. Accordingly, the following factual
background is a summary of the undisputed facts.
On October 26, 2012, Officers Beardshall and Lund responded to a call for assistance
from other police officers at a West Valley residence. After conducting an initial K9 search of a
vehicle located in the driveway, they entered the residence. Upon entry, they witnessed Officer
Coyle struggling with Mr. Christiansen on a cramped bathroom floor. Officer Beardshall helped
Officer Coyle secure Mr. Christiansen by placing his weight on Mr. Christiansen’s kicking legs,
and placing a handcuff on one of his arms. Officer Beardshall lifted Mr. Christiansen off the
floor and placed him against the vanity to secure his other arm.
Officer Coyle and Officer Beardshall then took Mr. Christiansen to the living room and
laid him on his stomach so shackles could be placed on his ankles. Mr. Christiansen continued to
kick and scream while Officer Lund attempted to attach the shackles. She eventually placed her
weight on his legs to secure them. She then took Mr. Christiansen to her patrol car and escorted
him to the hospital for evaluation and treatment for a cut he received during his struggle with
Officer Coyle.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs assert claims of excessive force and failure to intervene against Officers
Beardshall and Lund. Officers Beardshall and Lund argue that they are entitled to qualified
immunity for their involvement in Mr. Christiansen’s arrest. “When a defendant raises the
defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that the defendant
violated his constitutional rights and that the right was clearly established.” Callahan v.
Wyandotte Cnty, 806 F.3d 1022, 1027 (10th Cir. 2015). “[T]o show that a right is clearly
established, the plaintiff must point to ‘a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or
2
the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the
plaintiff maintains.’” Id. (quoting Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 427 (10th Cir.
2014). Alternatively, “[t]he law is also clearly established if the conduct is so obviously improper
that any reasonable officer would know it was illegal.” Id.
Officers Beardshall and Lund asserted a qualified immunity defense in their motion for
summary judgment. By failing to file an opposition, Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden.
Plaintiffs have not pointed to any court decision showing that Officer Beardshall’s and Officer
Lund’s conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights. Additionally, the undisputed facts demonstrate that
Officer Beardshall’s and Officer Lund’s actions were not “so obviously improper that any
reasonable officer would know [they were] illegal.” Id. For those reasons, the court GRANTS
Officer Beardshall’s and Officer Lund’s motion for summary judgment. (Docket 44).
Signed January 25, 2016.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge
3
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?