Ingle v. Yelton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1315
DEBORAH JEAN INGLE, Administrator of the
Estate of Christopher James Burt Ingle,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MIKE YELTON, in his official and individual
capacities; CHRIS YOUNG, in his official and
individual capacities; JOE JOHNSON, in his
official and individual capacities; CITY OF
ASHEVILLE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:03-cv-00199)
Argued: January 31, 2008 Decided: February 14, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Kyle William King, Weaverville, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Rendi Lynn Mann-Stadt, MCGUIRE, WOOD & BISSETTE, P.A.,
Asheville, North Carolina; Frederick S. Barbour, BARBOUR LAW FIRM,
P.L.L.C., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
Curtis W. Euler, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF
ASHEVILLE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Ingle brings this appeal challenging the district
court’s denial of two discovery motions and grant of summary
judgment against her. We affirm.
I.
A.
We have previously considered this case, and we refer to our
prior opinion for a more detailed factual account of the incident
and the procedural history. See Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v.
Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2006).
Shortly after 3 a.m. on July 15, 2001, Christopher Ingle shot
his father and sister with a shotgun. (Both were hospitalized but
survived). Christopher then fled in his father’s truck. Through
a series of radio transmissions, the officers of the Asheville
Police Department (“APD”) learned that a suspect had shot and
injured two people and had fled in a red Ford, dual axle pickup
truck. A highspeed chase ensued, ending in the parking lot of a
hotel.
Several law enforcement officers submitted affidavits about
the incident that followed. Together, these affidavits present a
coherent and consistent account. Christopher stopped the truck in
the parking lot and began to get out of the truck. He then lunged
inside, grabbed the shotgun, and aimed it at Officer Jones. As
3
backup arrived, Christopher got back in the truck and reversed past
the hotel’s main entrance. Christopher then came to a stop.
Officer Mike Yelton ordered him to drop his gun. Christopher
lowered the barrel of his shotgun so that it pointed at some of the
officers. Officers Yelton, Chris Young, and Joe Johnson then fired
at him, and six of the rounds struck and killed him. By the time
the shooting occurred, several law enforcement vehicles were parked
in the driveway or at the entrance of the parking lot.
Deborah Ingle (“Ingle”), Christopher’s mother and the
administrator of his estate, filed this action against Officers
Yelton, Young, and Johnson (“defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-18-1 and -18-2. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment.
Ingle responded by filing a Rule 56(f) motion seeking further
discovery and production of any videotape evidence of the chase and
shooting. She also challenged the motion for summary judgment.
The district court denied the Rule 56(f) motion, finding that
the “record appears to be complete as to the perceptions of the
officers.” The district court held that the defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity and granted the defendants summary
judgment. Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 345 F. Supp. 2d
578 (W.D.N.C. 2004).
On appeal, we reversed the district court’s denial of Ingle’s
Rule 56(f) motion and vacated the grant of summary judgment. See
4
Ingle, 439 F.3d at 196-98. The APD had begun installing cameras in
its vehicles several months before the incident. Although Ingle
could not determine whether any of the vehicles present that night
had cameras installed, the new policy provided sufficient basis to
conclude that a videotape of the incident might exist. Such a
videotape might have provided Ingle with an opportunity to
contradict the affidavits upon which the district court relied.
For this reason, we remanded for further discovery as to the
existence of a videotape of the incident; our mandate specifically
noted that the district court could reconsider the defendants’
motion for summary judgment again after completion of discovery.
Id. at 197.
B.
On remand, the district court ordered the parties to engage in
discovery as to the existence and contents of any possible
videotapes. During discovery, the defendants provided affidavits
from the officers known to be on the scene at the time of the
incident, and all denied having any operational camera in their
vehicles. The defendants also provided affidavits from the Captain
of the Sheriff’s Department and from the investigating officers of
the State Bureau of Investigation (“SBI”). In these affidavits,
all officers denied having any videotape of the incident or any
knowledge of such a videotape. Lieutenant Don Babb performed an
internal investigation, and during his deposition he testified that
5
he had thoroughly searched the evidence room, exhausted all leads,
and found no evidence of a videotape. The district court extended
discovery twice, so Ingle had ninety days to discover information
on the videotapes.
After the close of discovery, Ingle filed a motion to compel
the City to provide identifying information for all police vehicles
equipped with video cameras on that date. After a hearing on the
matter, the district court denied Ingle’s motion to compel.
Ingle then filed a motion, pursuant to Rule 56(f), to engage
in additional discovery. Ingle sought to listen to an audiotape of
the police radio communications from that night and to depose
Officer Fowler in light of photographic evidence revealing an
object on top of her dashboard, suggesting that her vehicle might
have contained a camera. The district court denied discovery on
the audiotape and ordered the defendants to provide specific
information about Officer Fowler’s vehicle and whether it contained
a camera. The defendants explained that Officer Fowler’s vehicle
had contained a radar unit and it appeared in the photograph.
Officer Fowler also provided an affidavit explaining that she had
been using radar, not a camera. The court then denied the Rule
56(f) motion.
After the close of discovery, the district court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity.
6
II.
On appeal, Ingle initially asserts that the district court
erred in denying her motion to compel and her Rule 56(f) motion.
We review both of these rulings for an abuse of discretion, because
the scope and conduct of discovery lie within the sound discretion
of the district court. See, e.g., Nguyen v. CAN Corp., 44 F.3d
234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995) (Rule 56(f) motion); Erdmann v. Preferred
Research, Inc. of Georgia, 852 F.2d 788, 792 (4th Cir. 1988)
(motion to compel).
A.
Ingle argues that the district court should have extended
discovery to identify all police vehicles equipped with video
cameras on the night of the incident. Ingle contends that the
officers known to be at the scene, the investigating officers of
the SBI, and the APD’s internal investigators might have overlooked
or failed to identify an officer and vehicle on the scene. Under
this theory, an unidentified officer in an unidentified vehicle
might have recorded the incident. Ingle also presented the
testimony of Cheryl King. During her testimony to the court, King
stated that she was shown a videotape of the incident, and although
someone obscured her vision during the crucial moments of the
shooting, she knows that a videotape exists. Although King cannot
identify who showed her the tape, where they showed it to her, or
what has become of the tape she viewed, Ingle contends that King’s
7
testimony establishes that a videotape of the incident exists, and
it must have been produced by an APD camera.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a plaintiff may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Even assuming
that this information is relevant (in the broadest sense), the
simple fact that requested information is discoverable under Rule
26(a) does not mean that discovery must be had.” Nicholas v.
Wyndham Intern., Inc., 373 F.3d 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2004). A
district court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed” if it concludes that “(I) the discovery sought
is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;
or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). As
discussed above, the defendants and APD provided numerous
affidavits, depositions, and evidence of two thorough
investigations. All evidence confirmed that the APD had not
produced a videotape and did not possess one. We cannot conclude
that the district court abused its discretion in limiting discovery
at this point and denying Ingle’s motion to compel.
8
B.
Ingle next contends that the district court erred in denying
her Rule 56(f) motion. Ingle argues that the district court should
have allowed discovery on the audiotape of the police radio
communications from that night and should have granted Ingle’s
request to depose Officer Fowler.
“[A] district court acts wholly within its discretion in
denying additional discovery where the delay in discovery is due to
the fault of the complaining party.” Strag v. Board of Trustees,
Craven Cmty. Coll., 55 F.3d 943, 953 (4th Cir. 1995). Ingle has
possessed the SBI report since 2003, and that report contains a
transcript of the police radio communications. Similarly, Ingle
possessed the crime scene photograph revealing an object on Officer
Fowler’s dashboard since 2003. Ingle has provided no satisfactory
explanation for the delay in requesting further discovery based on
this evidence. Moreover, the district court required Officer
Fowler and the APD to provide further evidence establishing that
the object on the dashboard was a radar unit. Given these facts,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ingle’s
Rule 56(f) motion.
III.
Finally, Ingle contends that the district court erred in
granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis
9
of qualified immunity. We review a grant of summary judgment de
novo. Long v. Dunlop Sports Group Ams., Inc., 506 F.3d 299, 301
(4th Cir. 2007). A defendant is entitled to summary judgment only
when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
undisputed facts establish that the defendant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
When reviewing the district court’s grant of qualified
immunity, we begin by determining whether “[t]aken in the light
most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts
alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional
right?” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Only if the
facts reveal a constitutional violation do we turn to “the next,
sequential step,” which is “to ask whether the right was clearly
established” at the time of the events at issue. Id.Ingle asserts that defendants violated Christopher’s “Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,
which encompasses the right to be free of arrests, investigatory
stops, or other seizures effectuated by excessive force.” Schultz
v. Braga, 455 F.3d 470, 476 (4th Cir. 2006). “[C]laims of
excessive force are to be judged under the Fourth Amendment’s
‘objective reasonableness’ standard.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.
194, 197 (2004). “The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of
deadly force is unmatched.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9
(1985). Officers may reasonably use deadly force, however, when
10
they have “probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a
threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to
others.” Id. at 11. The objective reasonableness of an
application of deadly force “must be judged from the perspective of
a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20
vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).
Ingle contends that the physical evidence suggests that the
window of the vehicle was closed when the firing began, and a
closed window would have interfered with Christopher’s ability to
aim the shotgun at the defendants. Further, relying on King’s
testimony recounting the seconds of the videotape she overheard
when her view was obstructed, Ingle argues that the first shot was
fired several seconds before the other shots occurred. Ingle
argues that Christopher may have aimed the shotgun at the officers
in self-defense and that the slightly earlier shot is inconsistent
with the officers’ affidavits.
None of this evidence creates a dispute as to a material fact.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts. The defendants
knew that: (1) Christopher was suspected in a domestic shooting;
(2) Christopher had fled arrest and engaged in a high speed chase;
(3) moments earlier, Christopher had pointed his shotgun at an
officer and refused to surrender; (4) finally, and crucially, all
available evidence indicates that Christopher was lowering or
pointing his shotgun at the officers when they began firing; none
11
of Ingle’s evidence suggests otherwise. A reasonable officer at
the scene would have had probable cause to believe that Christopher
posed a threat of serious physical harm. Even if the car window
was closed and did interfere with his aim, “[t]he car window was no
guarantee of safety when the pointed gun and the officers at whom
it was aimed were in such close proximity.” Elliott v. Leavitt, 99
F.3d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1996).
Because no constitutional violation occurred, the defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.
12