Truman v. Orem City et al

Filing 114

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 81 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 8/8/2019. (las)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CONRAD TRUMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREM CITY, a Utah municipality; OREM
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, a division
of Orem City; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER THOMAS WALLACE, an
individual; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER WILLIAM CROOK, an
individual; OREM CITY POLICE
OFFICER ORLANDO RUIZ, an individual;
OREM CITY POLICE OFFICER ART
LOPEZ, an individual; OREM CITY
POLICE OFFICER TODD FERRE, an
individual; UTAH COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, a division of Utah
County; DEPUTY UTAH COUNTY
ATTORNEY CRAIG JOHNSON, an
individual; OFFICER(S) JOHN/JANE DOE
110, individuals; and ATTORNEY(S)
JOHN/JANE DOE 1-5, individuals,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case No. 2:17-CV-775 TS-EJF
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
City of Orem, Orem City Police Department, Officer Thomas Wallace, Officer William Crook,
Officer Orlando Ruiz, Officer Art Lopez and Officer Todd Ferre (collectively, “Defendants”).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Conrad and Heidy Truman were at home together on September 30, 2012. No one else
was in the home. At some point that evening, the couple began to quarrel and Heidy went into

1

the bathroom and locked the door. Mr. Truman then picked the lock and followed her into the
bathroom, but left after Heidy asked him to. Later, Mr. Truman was in the kitchen alone when
he thought he heard the bathroom door open. A moment later he heard a “pop” sound. Heidy
Truman was located toward the back of the house, near the bathroom doorway. She fell forward
toward Mr. Truman onto the dining room floor. Rushing to help her, he quickly realized she was
bleeding profusely from the side of her head and was struggling to breathe. He attempted CPR
and then called 911.
When police arrived at the scene, they found Mr. Truman covered in blood, intoxicated,
and in shock. He had to be removed from Heidy Truman’s body and threatened to kill the police
officers if they did not save her life. Heidy was taken to the hospital, where she later died of her
wounds.
After a months-long investigation, police ultimately arrested Mr. Truman and charged
him with his wife’s murder. Mr. Truman was tried and convicted of murder and obstruction of
justice. After trial, Mr. Truman, though new counsel, filed a number of motions with the state
court. As a result of one of these motions, Mr. Truman was granted a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence and was eventually acquitted.
Mr. Truman brings the present § 1983 action against the police officers and prosecutors
involved in his criminal prosecution, as well as Orem City, the Orem City Police Department,
and the Utah County Attorney’s Office (“UCAO”). Defendants Utah County Deputy Prosecutor
Craig Johnson and the UCAO have been dismissed from the case. The remaining Defendants
now seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action.

2

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate “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.” 1 In
considering whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the Court determines whether a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party in the face of all the evidence
presented. 2 The Court is required to construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. 3
III. DISCUSSION
A.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Plaintiff alleges that Orem City police officers William Crook, Orlando Ruiz, Art Lopez,

and Todd Ferre illegally detained and questioned him on the night of Heidy’s death and into the
next day. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not properly Mirandized and that he was held without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
In moving for summary judgment, Defendants argue that this claim is barred by the
statute of limitations. Both parties agree that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 action is a
matter of state law, and that the term is four years under the applicable Utah law. However, the
parties disagree about when the claim accrues.

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

2

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Clifton v. Craig, 924
F.2d 182, 183 (10th Cir. 1991).
3

See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986);
Wright v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 925 F.2d 1288, 1292 (10th Cir. 1991).

3

Defendants argue that the claim accrues after the action occurs. Therefore, because the
alleged bad actions took place on September 30, 2012, and October 1, 2012, the statute of
limitations began to run immediately and expired on October 1, 2016.
Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because his claim involves
not only allegations of unlawful detention and interrogation, but also use of the acquired
statements in his prosecution. Plaintiff therefore argues that the claim accrued on July 19, 2013,
when charges were brought against him that relied on his illegally obtained statements.
In Wallace v. Kato, 4 the United States Supreme Court considered when the statute of
limitation in a § 1983 case should accrue where the plaintiff alleged unlawful arrest. The Court
noted that “it is the standard rule that accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and
present cause of action, that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief.” 5 In the case of a
§ 1983 claim based on an improper arrest, the statute of limitations begins to run when that
unlawful detention ends. 6
The plaintiff in that case argued that his release from custody must be the date of accrual,
because the “unlawful arrest led to the coerced confession, which was introduced at his trial,
producing his conviction and incarceration.” 7 However, the Supreme Court noted that after the
initial detention, a magistrate judge had ruled to bind over plaintiff for trial, thus ending any
harm caused by the initial unlawful detention. “From that point on, any damages recoverable
must be based on a malicious prosecution claim and on the wrongful use of judicial process
4

549 U.S. 384 (2007).

5

Id. at 388 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

6

Id. at 389.

7

Id. at 391.

4

rather than detention itself.” 8 With regard to the original arrest, “[t]he cause of action accrues
even though the full extent of the injury is not then known or predictable.” 9 The Tenth Circuit
has similarly held that “[c]laims arising out of police actions toward a criminal suspect, such as
arrest, interrogation, or search and seizure, are presumed to have accrued when the actions
actually occur.” 10
In this case, the basis of Plaintiff’s claim was known on October 1, 2012, when he was
detained and questioned. Plaintiff may not pursue other harms under the same cause of action,
even those that follow as natural consequences of the original harm. Therefore, the date of
accrual is October 1, 2012, and the statute of limitations expired on October 1, 2016. Because
Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 12, 2017, it is outside the statute of limitations and the Court
will grant summary judgment on his first cause of action.
B.

SECOND THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION
Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s second through eighth causes of action are barred by

issue preclusion. These six separate causes of action include a wide array of allegations,
including lack of probable cause for warrants and subpoenas (second cause of action), unlawful
arrest (third cause of action), unlawful pretrial detention (fourth cause of action), malicious
prosecution (fifth cause of action), manufacturing and fabricating evidence (sixth cause of
action), lack of probable cause in criminal information (seventh cause of action), and unfairness
of criminal trial (eighth cause of action).

8

Id. at 390 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

9

Id. at 391 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

10

Johnson v. Johnson Cty. Comm’n. Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir. 1991).

5

In Allen v. McCurry, 11 the United States Supreme Court found that the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral estoppel apply to § 1983 actions. 12 The Court reasoned that “Congress
has specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments
whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so.” 13 The Tenth
Circuit follows Allen v. McCurry, in applying preclusion doctrines to § 1983 actions. 14 In doing
so, it analyzes the preclusive effect of state court judgments under state law. 15
Under Utah law, “[i]ssue preclusion applies only when the following four elements
are met”:
(i) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party to or
in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; (ii) the issue decided in the prior
adjudication must be identical to the one presented in the instant action; (iii) the
issue in the first action must have been completely, fully, and fairly litigated; and
(iv) the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits. 16
In opposing summary judgment based on issue preclusion, Plaintiff asserts that 1) the
state court’s probable cause finding is not binding, 2) probable cause is properly a question for a
11

449 U.S. 90 (1980).

12

Id. at 104–05.

13

Id. at 96.

14

See, e.g., Cook v. Aagard, 547 F. App’x 857, 859 (10th Cir. 2013) (“A federal civil
rights plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from litigating a § 1983 claim by a state court
criminal judgment, so long as he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue at the state
criminal proceedings.”) (citing Allen, 449 U.S. at 104–05).
15

Id. (“The preclusive effect in federal court of a state judgment is governed by the
state’s preclusion rules.”); Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1459 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Congress has
specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments
whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so. This practice
promotes the comity between state and federal courts that has been recognized as a bulwark of
the federal system.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
16

Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT 70, ¶ 29, 194 P.3d 956, 965 (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).

6

jury, 3) he was refused an evidentiary hearing, and 4) the probable cause finding was “based
solely upon the tainted information provided by Defendants.” 17 These arguments appear to only
contest the third point of Utah’s preclusion analysis, whether the probable cause issue was fully
and fairly litigated in state court.
Regarding Plaintiff’s first argument, as discussed above, a state court’s finding of
probable cause finding may have preclusive effect in a § 1983 action. Regarding Plaintiff’s
second argument, Plaintiff does not identify, and the Court is unaware of, any case law that
requires a probable cause finding to be made by a jury in order for it to have preclusive effect.
Plaintiff’s third and fourth arguments are addressed in greater detail below.
Plaintiff asserts in his Amended Complaint that his “requests to quash the previous
bindover or for a new preliminary hearing were opposed, almost summarily denied, and the state
court relied upon the tainted evidence and the tainted probable cause findings made previously at
the preliminary hearing.” 18
However, a review of the record does not suggest any reason for the Court to doubt the
thoroughness or fairness of the state court’s decisions. The state court issued a number of
decisions in January 2017 relevant to the issues before the Court. In its Order on Defendant’s
Combined Motion for Bill of Particulars; Bar to Prosecution; and New Preliminary Hearing, the
state court found that probable cause remained, even taking into account the various arguments
made by Mr. Truman. 19 In its Order Denying Defendant’s Renewal of Motions to Continue
Trial; to Suppress Statements and Request for Pretrial Evidentiary Hearing; and Relating to
17

Docket No. 90, at 46.

18

Docket No. 38, at 148.

19

Docket No. 81 Ex. 10, at 33–34.

7

Probable Cause Findings, the court stated: “The Court heard the evidence in this case at the
preliminary hearing long ago and has noted the variety of evidence supporting probable cause.” 20
The state court also made specific findings related to the existence of probable cause in
the warrant and supporting affidavits, which Mr. Truman argued were filled with inaccuracies
and omitted critical information. The court stated:
The Court reviewed the affidavits and warrants issued by other district court
judges in this matter[] and sees no reason to believe the warrants were not
supported by affidavits showing probable cause. There were enough facts
presented to show such things as a defendant covered in blood, giving a story that
did not necessarily match what could be seen at the location of the alleged crime
including no blood from the alleged victim in the area where defendant claims the
sound of the pop came from, the defendant making threats, being evasive about a
handgun and other details, the defendant making admissions and inconsistent
statements, created probable cause a criminal homicide had been committed by
defendant. 21
The court pointed to “additional unchallenged information in the warrants to support probable
cause.” 22 The court also noted that Plaintiff failed to show that “the officers were providing
information they knew or should have known was false if they were not being reckless.” 23
With respect to the administrative subpoenas challenged by Mr. Truman, the state court
found that they were supported by good cause and were reasonably related to the investigation. 24
Finally, in its Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government
Conduct, the state court made a number of relevant findings. First, as to the incorrect

20

Id. at 2.

21

Id. at 9.

22

Id. at 10.

23

Id.

24

Id. at 15.

8

measurements, the court found they were due to ineptitude and carelessness. 25 “Just because
something was wrong does not mean the prosecutors or police were being deceitful.” 26 With
regard to the testimony of the medical examiner, the state court found that it was not
intentionally falsified. 27 As to financial motive evidence, while the court found it to be weak,
“there is no indication that the prosecution lied about it.” 28 And ruling on the 94-second phone
call, the court found no deliberate falsehood by police or prosecutors. 29
Plaintiff asserts that the state court’s finding of probable cause was “based solely upon
the tainted information provided by Defendants.” 30 This argument is not supported by the
record. Plaintiff claims that the finding was based on “only a few material facts,” including, “the
purported distance Heidy traveled in conjunction with the Medical Examiner’s opinion that
Heidy would have dropped almost immediately,” the fact that Heidy’s death had been classified
as a homicide, and gunshot residue (“GSR”) evidence. 31 However, the record demonstrates that
the state court judge also considered other evidence sufficient to independently support probable
cause. 32 Further, even after being informed of the issues that make up Plaintiff’s Complaint, the
state court repeatedly continued to find the existence of probable cause, as discussed. Therefore,

25

Id. at 28.

26

Id. at 29.

27

Id.

28

Id. at 30.

29

Id. at 31.

30

Docket No. 90, at 46.

31

Id. at 46 n.72.

32

Id. 90 Ex. 9, at 26–32.
9

issue preclusion does apply and, as discussed below, bars Plaintiff’s second through eighth
causes of action.
1.

Second and Third Causes of Action

Plaintiff’s second cause of action asserts a lack of probable cause for warrants and
investigative subpoenas. His third cause of action alleges an unlawful arrest. As set forth above,
the state court considered and rejected these very arguments. Therefore, Plaintiff is precluded
from relitigating them. Even if the Court were to reopen the probable cause inquiry, based on
the evidence Plaintiff has presented, no reasonable jury could conclude that the warrants in this
case, including the arrest warrant, were not supported by probable cause.
To prove that each warrant lacked probable cause, Plaintiff would need to show that after
setting aside all false information, and including all omitted exculpatory evidence, each warrant
lacked probable cause. 33 Plaintiff would also need “proof that the affiant seeking [each] warrant
knew that the challenged information was false or that he had a reckless disregard for its
truthfulness. ‘Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.’” 34 “The burden is
on the plaintiff to ‘make a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for
truth’ by the officer seeking the warrant.” 35 “[T]here must exist evidence that the officer in fact
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his allegations . . . and [a] factfinder may infer
reckless disregard from circumstances evincing obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the

33

Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1293 (10th Cir. 2004).

34

Beard v. City of Northglenn, Colo., 24 F.3d 110, 114 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Franks
v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155–56, 171)).
35

Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134, 1142 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Snell v. Tunnell,
920 F.2d 673, 698 (10th Cir. 1990)).

10

allegations.” 36 Plaintiff has failed to make the necessary showing. Therefore, summary
judgment is appropriate.
2.

Fourth Cause of Action

Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action alleges that he was unlawfully detained because of a
lack of probable cause. Again, the state court decided this issue and Plaintiff is precluded from
litigating it. Even if the Court were to reopen the probable cause inquiry, based on the evidence
Plaintiff has presented, no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s pretrial detention was
not based on probable cause.
3.

Fifth Cause of Action

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is a claim of malicious prosecution. Under Utah tort law,
“lack of probable cause is an essential element of the tort of malicious prosecution.” 37 Based on
issue preclusion, the Court declines to allow Plaintiff to relitigate the state court’s findings of
probable cause. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as
to this claim. Further, even if the Court were to reopen the probable cause inquiry, based on the
evidence Plaintiff has presented, no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s arrest,
continued confinement, or prosecution were not based on probable cause.
4.

Sixth Cause of Action

In Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action, he brings a claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments alleging that Defendants manufactured and/or fabricated inculpatory evidence and
withheld exculpatory evidence. In Pierce v. Gilchrist, the Tenth Circuit reasoned that the closest
36

Beard, 24 F.3d at 116 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

37

Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1561–62 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Hodges v. Gibson
Prods. Co., 811 P.2d 151, 158 (Utah 1991)).

11

common law analogy to a § 1983 complaint alleging fabrication of inculpatory evidence and
disregard of exculpatory evidence is malicious prosecution. 38 Adopting that reasoning, the Court
will construe Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action as a malicious prosecution claim, which fails for the
reasons just stated. Moreover, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude
that Defendant manufactured, fabricated, or withheld material evidence.
5.

Seventh Cause of Action

In his seventh cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that his criminal information was not
based on probable cause. Based on issue preclusion, the Court declines to allow Plaintiff to
relitigate the state court’s findings of probable cause. Therefore, the Court will grant summary
judgment as to the seventh cause of action. Even if the Court were to reopen the probable cause
inquiry, Plaintiff has not presented adequate evidence such that a reasonable jury could conclude
that his criminal information was not based on probable cause.
6.

Eight Cause of Action

In his eighth cause of action, Plaintiff brings a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment
alleging fundamental unfairness of his criminal trial. Plaintiff recounts essentially the same facts
as the fifth cause of action for malicious prosecution but brings the claim under only the
Fourteenth. However, as the Tenth Circuit reasoned in Pierce v. Gilchrist, analogizing such §
1983 claims to malicious prosecution is equally valid under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. 39 Thus, this claim fails for the same reason as Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action.

38

359 F.3d at 1291.

39

Id. at 1287 n.5.

12

Moreover, the Tenth Circuit has noted that the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth
Amendment, governs such claims. 40
C.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
To the extent that Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action is not barred for the reasons stated, it

fails on the merits. The Tenth Circuit “recognize[s] a § 1983 claim for a violation of Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process rights in the narrowest of circumstances.” 41 “The conduct
alleged ‘must do more than show that the government actor intentionally or recklessly caused
injury to the plaintiff by abusing or misusing government power . . . [It] must demonstrate a
degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience
shocking.” 42 “This standard is met in only the most extreme circumstances, typically involving
some violation of physical liberty or personal physical integrity.” 43 The evidence presented does
not support a substantive due process claim. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment
on this claim.
D.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
In his ninth cause of action, Plaintiff brings a claim against Orem City and the Orem City

Police Department for unlawful policy, practice, and custom. Defendants move for summary

40

Taylor, 82 F.3d at 1561; see also Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994)
(declining to recognize a substantive right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to be free from criminal prosecution except upon probable cause”).
41

Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904, 922 (10th Cir. 2007).

42

Id. at 922–23 (quoting Livsey v. Salt Lake Cty., 275 F.3d 952, 957–58 (10th Cir.

43

Id. at 923.

2001)).

13

judgment on this cause of action and Plaintiff offers no response. Therefore, the Court will grant
summary judgment.
IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Also before the Court is Defendants’ Expert Opinions of Plaintiff’s Expert Robert Prevot.
Because nothing in Mr. Prevot’s report alters the Court’s conclusions, the Court need not decide
this Motion. However, the Court is in agreement with many of the arguments raised by
Defendants with respect to Mr. Prevot’s opinions.
V. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 81) is
GRANTED.
DATED this 8th day of August, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

14