Massasoit v. Carter ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1929
    CODY HASTINGS MASSASOIT, Executor for Tallas
    Hastings Tomeny, Deceased; STEPHEN PHELPS,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    versus
    LANE   CARTER,  Sheriff,   In  his official
    capacity; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF
    MARYLAND; RANDALL BUTLER, Deputy, In his
    individual and official capacity,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    and
    MOORE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Russell A. Eliason,
    Magistrate Judge. (1:04-cv-00151)
    Argued:   September 27, 2007             Decided:    November 15, 2007
    Before SHEDD, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and
    Samuel G. WILSON, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: James Redfern Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE &
    RICE, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants.
    Stewart Wayne Fisher, GLENN, MILLS & FISHER, Durham, North
    Carolina; Robert Mauldin Elliot, ELLIOT, PISHKO & MORGAN, P.A.,
    Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Bradley O.
    Wood, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem,
    North Carolina, for Appellants. Carlos E. Mahoney, GLENN, MILLS &
    FISHER, P.A., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee Stephen Phelps.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    During a traffic stop, Moore County (N.C.) Deputy Sheriff
    Randall Butler shot and killed Tallas Tomeny and shot and seriously
    wounded Stephen Phelps.   Phelps and Tomeny’s estate (collectively,
    “appellees”) filed an action under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     and North
    Carolina state law against Butler, Lane Carter, and Fidelity and
    Deposit    Company   of   Maryland   (“Fidelity”)   (collectively,
    “appellants”).* The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing
    that Butler’s actions were (1) reasonable or, alternatively, (2)
    protected by qualified immunity.     The district court denied the
    motion, and the appellants now appeal.       Finding no error, we
    affirm.
    I
    In their complaint, the appellants claim that (1) Butler
    violated their right to be free from the use of excessive force and
    (2) Carter and Fidelity have derivative liability for Butler’s
    actions.   The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that
    (1) Butler’s use of force was reasonable because he had probable
    cause to believe that the appellants posed a serious threat to
    Butler’s safety or the safety of others, or alternatively, (2) if
    Butler’s use of force was unreasonable, he is nonetheless entitled
    to qualified immunity because the right violated was not “clearly
    *
    Carter is the sheriff of Moore County and Fidelity is the
    surety on Carter’s bond, which North Carolina law requires that
    sheriffs purchase. 
    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-8
    .
    3
    established.”      Saucier v. Katz, 
    533 U.S. 194
    , 201 (2001); see
    Tennessee v. Garner, 
    471 U.S. 1
    , 11 (1985).           The district court
    denied the appellants’ motion because the appellees’ version of the
    facts would not entitle the appellants to summary judgment on
    either the question of reasonableness or qualified immunity.
    We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for
    summary judgment.      Johnson v. Caudill, 
    475 F.3d 645
    , 650 (4th Cir.
    2007).     On a motion for summary judgment, we view the facts in the
    light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Scott v. Harris,
    
    127 S. Ct. 1769
    , 1776 (2007).         Under this standard, the record
    indicates the following facts.
    As part of their training for the Green Beret Special Forces,
    Tomeny and Phelps participated in an exercise termed “Operation
    Robin Sage.”      Operation Robin Sage has been conducted for over
    forty years in and around Moore County.             During the exercise,
    soldiers join with civilian volunteers to overthrow the government
    of   the   fictional   country   of   “Pineland.”     The   soldiers   must
    accomplish their mission, avoid capture, and maintain their roles
    throughout the exercise.
    On February 23, 2002, civilian volunteer Charles Leiber drove
    a Ford Ranger pick-up truck with Tomeny in the passenger seat and
    Phelps in the truck bed.      Tomeny possessed a bag, which contained
    an M-4 assault rifle.       While on patrol, Butler pulled over the
    pick-up truck because he felt the occupants’ behavior indicated
    4
    that they might be searching for robbery targets.          Butler led
    Leiber to his patrol car for questioning.     After leaving Leiber in
    the patrol car, Butler led Tomeny from the pick-up truck passenger
    seat to the truck bed so that he could search Tomeny’s bag.    Butler
    never saw the gun in the bag because the compartment containing the
    gun remained closed.    During the search, Tomeny and Butler tussled
    for the bag.     Butler pushed Tomeny away and threw the bag to one
    side.    Tomeny raised his hands and did not bump Butler or reach for
    Butler’s service weapon.    Butler drew his service weapon with the
    safety off.      Then, Butler reholstered his service weapon and
    sprayed Tomeny in the eyes with pepper spray until the pepper spray
    appeared to run out.    Tomeny yelled and screamed when sprayed, but
    did not threaten Butler with physical force.     As Tomeny rubbed his
    eyes from the pepper spray with both hands at his head, Butler
    pulled his service weapon and shot Tomeny twice.         While Butler
    pepper sprayed Tomeny, Phelps fled the pick-up truck bed, grabbed
    the bag, and ran toward the woods.     As he was running, Phelps heard
    the shots fired at Tomeny and turned suddenly.     Because of the wet
    pavement, Phelps slipped and fell to his hands and knees.      Phelps
    did not attempt to open the bag.       Without warning Phelps, Butler
    shot him twice.
    Under these facts, which we reiterate are in the light most
    favorable to Tomeny and Phelps, Butler’s actions were (1) neither
    reasonable because he had insufficient justification for his use of
    5
    deadly force, (2) nor protected by qualified immunity because, at
    the time of the shootings, it was clearly established that the use
    of deadly force was not justified under these facts.   Accordingly,
    we affirm the decision of the district court. Massasoit v. Carter,
    
    439 F. Supp. 2d 463
     (M.D.N.C. 2006).
    AFFIRMED
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1929

Judges: Shedd, Hamilton, Wilson, Western, Virginia

Filed Date: 11/15/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024