Lemoine v. St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES D ISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC T OF LOUISIANA DERRION JOSEPH LEMOINE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 22-201 ST. TAMMANY PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET AL. DIVISION “5” ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and/or for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 (rec. doc. 15) filed by Defendant Zacharias 1 Ussery. Plaintiff Derrion Joseph Lemoine has filed no opposition to the motion. Having rI.e vieweBda cthkeg rmooutniodn and the case law, the Court rules as follows. On August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida battered Louisiana, including St. Tammany Parish. During the storm, the St. Tammany Parish Jail (“the jail”) lost electricity, the air conditioner broke, and the roof leaked, creating condensation on the concrete floors. (Rec. doc. 15-6 at ¶ 5). At the time Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana, Lemoine was housed in the Restrictive Housing Unit (“RHU”), where violent offenders are housed. (Rec. doc. 15-7 at ¶ 15). Deputies at the jail were aware that Lemoine was in the RHU because he was violent, having been charged with double armed robbery, kidnappings, and murders. (Rec. doc. 15- 6 at ¶ 8; Rec. doc. 15-7 at ¶ 15). Lemoine had a well-known disposition for defiant and combative behavior at the jail. (Rec. doc. 15-4 at ¶ 12; Rec. doc. 15-6 at ¶ 8; Rec. doc. 15-7 at ¶ 15). Lemoine garnered 1 his reputation due to aggravated disobedience, fighting, possessing shanks, battery, disorderly conduct, tampering with surveillance equipment, and damage to property. (Rec. doc. 15-4 at ¶ 7). From 2016 through AuguIds.t 30, 2021, Lemoine was disciplined 19 times and pleaded guilty to 17 of those charges. ( at ¶ 8). On August 30, 2021, Deputy Ardeneaux informed Ussery that Lemoine continued to cover the camera in his cell despite numerous warnings not to do so. (Rec. doc. 15-6 aIdt .¶ 7). Covering one’s camera is against the rules and compromises the jail’s securIidty.. ( ). Despite several more warnings, Lemoine refused to stop covIedr.ing his camera. ( ). As a result, Ussery was ordered to remove Lemoine from his cell. ( at ¶ 9). After arriving at Lemoine’s cell, Ussery attempted several times Itdo. persuade 2 Lemoine to refrain from covering his camIedr.a to avoid being “dry celled.” ( at ¶ 10). Lemoine defiantly refused to cooperate. ( ). He began to curse and scream at Ussery, who enteredId L.emoine’s cell and asked Lemoine to face the wall and place his hands behind his back. ( at ¶ 12). When Ussery attempted to handcuff Lemoine, Lemoine turned around and resisted, forcing Ussery to shove him against the waIdll. and necessitating the assistance of other deputies to subdue Lemoine into compliance. ( at ¶ 14). About this time, Deputy Cole Willie had just slipped on the wet floors and was in the office reporting his fall when he noticed on the security camera the altercation in the RHU involving several deputies and Lemoine. (Rec. doc. 15-7 at ¶ 7Id).. When Willie arrived to assist, Lemoine was already handcuffed but still combative. ( at ¶ 9). Willie assIidst.ed Ussery in escorting Lemoine out of his cell and down the halIlwd.ay to a nearby bench. ( at ¶ 11). Lemoine remained defiant and resisted the escort. ( ). As they walked down the hall, Lemoine wasI dc.ombative, pushing and pulling away, eventually pushing Willie into another deputy. ( ). The hallway down which the deputies wereI de.scorting Lemoine was the same hallway where Willie had slipped on the slick floors. ( at ¶ 12). Id L.emoine’s resistance ultimately caused all three men to slip on the wet floIdo.rs and fall. ( at ¶ 13). Lemoine struck his head on the floor, causing it to bleedI. d .( ). The deputies helped Lemoine to stand, and Willie escorted Lemoine to medical. ( at ¶¶ I1d3. , 14). Lemoine was ultimately disciplined for continuing to cover tphreo csaemera in his cell. ( at ¶ 11). On February 22, 2022, Lemoine filed a complaint against the jail and Ussery in which he seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lemoine alleges that on August 30, 2021, Ussery “used excessive use of force by slamming me against the wall and then slamming me on the floor, and then lied and stated in a Disciplinary Report 2 that I slipped and fell due to IthI.e flooLras wbe ainngd wAenta.”l y (sRisec. doc. 3). A. Standard fo r a Motion for Summary Judgment3 Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to anyC emloatteexr iCaol rfpa. cvt. Caantdr etthtat the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time 3 As the Court finds Ussery’s summary Rjuhdogdmese nv.t Um.So.t iOonff . doisf pSopseitciivael, tChoiusn Cso.urt addresses only the summary judgment motion (as opposed to the motion to dismiss), as Ussery attached evidence to the motion that is not referenced in Lemoine’s complaint. , No. 3:05-CV-2402-K, 2008 WL 4791380, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2008) (“The documents thus constitute matters outside the pleadings, and should not be considered for purposes of the motion to dismiss. The exercise of such discretion appears especially appropriate when the party seeking a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal also moves for summary judgment for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element eIsds.ential to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” A party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for summary judgment and identifying those portions of the record, discovery, aIndd. any affidavits supporting the conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact. at 323. If the moving party meets that burden, then the nonmoving party must use evidence coIdg.nizable under Rule 56 to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. at 324. A genuine issue oSfe em Aantedreiraslo fna cvt. eLxiibsetrst iyf aL orbebays,o Innacb.le jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Material facts are not genuinely disputed when a rational trier oSf efaec Mt caotsuuldsh nitoat Efilnedc. fIonrd uthse. C noo. nvm. Zoevniinthg Rpaadrtiyo uCporopn. a review of the record takenE qausa al wEmhopl'et .O pportunity Comm'n v. Simbaki, Ltd. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); , 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014). “[U]nsubstantiated assertions,” “conclusory allegations,” andS meee Arenldye crsoolonrable factual bases areH ionpspuefrfi cvi.e Fnrta tnok defeat a motion for summary judgment. , 477 U.S. at 249-50; , 16 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). In ruling on aS eseu Dmemltaar &y jPuidneg mLeanntd mCoot. iov.n ,N aa ctioounrwt imdea yA ngoritb ruessionlevses cIrnesd. iCboil.ity issues or weigh evidence. , 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, a court must assess the evidence, review the facts, and draw any appropriate inferences based on tSheee eTvoildaenn cve. Ciont ttohne light most favorable to theD apnairetlys vo.p Cpiotsyi nogf sAurmlinmgtaorny judgment. , 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014); , 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001). Yet a court only draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant “when there is an actualL ciottnlet rvo.v Leirqsuyi, dt hAaitr iCs,o wrph.en both parties have submitted evidence ofL cuojanntr va.d Nicatto'lr Wy ifladcltifse.” F ed'n , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing , 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)). After the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute, the nonmovant must articulate specific facts and pointS teoe Lsuynpcpho rPtrinopgs, .,c Ionmc.p ve. tPeontto emvaidc eInncse. Ctoh. aotf mIlla.y be presented in a form admissible at trial. , 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (c)(M2)a.t s Suushchit afacts must create more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” , 475 U.S. at 586. When the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive issue, the moving party may simply point to insufficient admissible evidence to establish an essenStieael eCleelmoteenxt of the nonmovant's claim in order to satisfy its summary judgment burden. , 477 U.S. at 322-25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(B). Unless there is a genuine issue for trial that couldSe seu Lpitptolert a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, summary judgment must be grantedB. . Anal, y3s7i sF .3d at 1075-76. In order to succeed on a Section 1983 claim that a defendant violated his Fourth Amendment right against excessive force, a plaintiff must show that he was seized and that he “suffered (1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the use of forceB tahlalat rwda vs. eBxucretossnive to the need and that (3) the force used waFsl oorbejse cvt.i vCeitlyy oufn Preaalascoinoasble.” , 444 F.3d 391, 402 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Goo, d3s8o1n Fv..3 Cdi t3y9 o1f, C3o9r6p u(5s tChh Criisrt.i 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); , 202 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir. 2000). “The ‘reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather Graham than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” , 490 U.S. at 396. In this “reasonableness” inquiry, “the question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and cIdir.cumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” at 397. Excessive force claims are necessarily fact-intensive; whether the force used is “excessivDee”v iollre v“u. Mnraeracsaonntealble” depends on “the facts and circumstaGnrcaehsa omf ev.a Ccohn pnaorrticular case.” , 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing , 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Ussery’s actions were not objectively unreasonable under the factual circumstances of this case. As Lemoine failed to 4 oppose Ussery’s motion, the only evidence before this Court reveals that Lemoine is a combative and violent prisoner prone to resist authority. The affidavits of Corporal Johnathan Lott and Deputies Ussery and Willie, and the video evidence submitted by 5 Ussery corroborate Ussery’s version of events. Lemoine defied Ussery by refusing to remove his hand from his cell camera, and he resisted Ussery when Ussery attempted to remove him from his cell, cursing and screaming at him. He remained defiant and combative when Ussery and Willie began to escort him down the hall, even shoving Willie into another deputy. It is clear that Lemoine’s attempts to resist the escort were the reason all three men fell in the hallway, causing Lemoine to suffer his injury. In other words, Lemoine caused his own injury. To succeed on his Section 1983 claim, Lemoine must establish that the force was not applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and 4 Bookman v. Shubzda “A summary judgment nonmovant who does not respond to the motion is relegated to [his] unsworn pleadings, which do not constitute summary judgment evidence.” , 945 F. Supp. 999, Brewer v. Prier sadistically to cause harm, aHnudd stohnat he suffered injury. , 334 F. App'x 618, 6 619 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing , 503 U.S. at 6-7). The only evidence before this Court demonstrates that Ussery tried to obtain Lemoine’s compliance through non-fBorrecwefeurl means, but Lemoine’s continued noncompliance made the use of force necessary. , 334 F. App’x at 619. Further, the application of that force was not clearly excIde.ssive to the need to restore discipline such that it constituted a constitutional violation. Measured force used on a prisoner to obtain compliance with lawful orders and to restore dSisecei,p eli.nge. Disa nwosto no bv.j eAcntidveerlsyo nu nCrteya., sToenxa.ble under well-established Fifth Circuit case law. , , 566 F. App’x 369, 370 (5th Cir. 2014). There is no genuine issue of material fact that Ussery’s use of measured force was necessary to restrain LIIeIm. oinCeo anncdlu rseisotonre discipline at the jail. Summary judgment is warranted here. FITo rI Sth OeR foDrEeRgoEiDng reasons, that the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.RG.CR.PA.N 1T2E(bD)(6) and/or for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 (rec. doc. 15) is , aDndIS MPlIaSiSnEtiDff DWeIrTrHio nP RJEosJUepDhI CLEemoine’s claims against Defendant Zacharias Ussery are . 20th December New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2022. MICHAEL B. NORTH 6 That Lemoine suffered an injury is of no moment here. Not only did Lemoine cause his own injury by actively resisting the escort, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]he ‘core judiciaWl iinlkqiunisr yv’.. G. .a wddays not whether a certain quantum Hofu idnsjounr yv . wMacsM silulastnained, but rather ‘whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE