Jones v. Moore Police Dep't

BERNARD M. JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Oklahoma prisoner appearing pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. The matter has been referred by United States District Judge Stephen P. Friot for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Moore Police Department and the Cleveland County Detention Center, [Doc. Nos. 8, 11]. Before the Court is Defendant Officer Jarrod Queen's Motion for Summary Judgment (Def.'s Mot.) [Doc. No. 26]. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant Queen's motion. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED.

I. Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Queen

At all times relevant to this caseJa, Plaintiff was either in the custody of Defendant Queen or a pretrial detainee at the Cleveland County Detention Center (CCDC). Plaintiff alleges that on August 15, 2017, Defendant Queen found him under a tree at the "Nodingham Apartments with blood gushing out of his wrist," the alleged result of a suicide attempt. Compl. at 3-4. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Queen "took him to jail with no medical treatment." Id. As discussed in further detail below, the documentary evidence submitted by Defendant Queen demonstrates that no such injury was ever observed by arresting officers, that Plaintiff never reported any injuries upon being booked into CCDC and that Plaintiff never requested medical care for any such wounds.

Citations refer to this Court's CM/ECF pagination.

II. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

Defendant Queen seeks entry of summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See Def.'s Mot. at 3. Defendant Queen has attached relevant exhibits to his Motion.

Summary judgment is appropriate if "'there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 17-3120, 2018 WL 3945875, at *4 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)). For purposes of summary judgment, "[t]he nonmoving party is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the record." Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Sys., Inc., 726 F.3d 1136, 1143 (10th Cir. 2013). If, however, "the nonmovant bears the burden of persuasion on a claim at trial, summary judgment may be warranted if the movant points out a lack of evidence to support an essential element of that claim and the nonmovant cannot identify specific facts that would create a genuine issue." Id. at 1143-44.

III. Analysis

Defendant Queen has provided evidence supporting his statement of undisputed facts. The unrefuted evidence demonstrates Plaintiff's claim—that he was arrested after suffering self-inflicted injuries that resulted in blood gushing from his wrist—is false. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that he ever suffered such an injury before, during or after he was held as a pretrial detainee at CCDC.

Members of the Moore Police Department arrested Plaintiff during the early morning hours of August 15, 2017, based on Raldin Divas' identification of Plaintiff as one of three men who had robbed him at gun point shortly before he reported the crime. Exhibits attached to Defendant Queen's motion include an incident report signed by Officer John Ellis, [Doc. No. 26-1]; an incident report signed by Defendant Queen, [Doc. No. 26-2]; an Affidavit signed by Defendant Queen, [Doc. No. 26-3]; an Affidavit signed by Officer John Ellis, [Doc. No. 26-4]; an Affidavit signed by Officer Christopher Casarez, [Doc. No. 26-5]; a copy of the booking report regarding Plaintiff's arrest, [Doc. No. 26-6]; the Health History report Plaintiff completed upon his detention in CCDC, [Doc. No. 26-7]; an Affidavit signed by Hannah Moses, the detention officer at CCDC who booked Plaintiff into jail, [Doc. No. 26-8]; and a copy of the Booking Detail Report, including a medical intake form for nursing, [Doc. No. 26-9]. These documents support the following undisputed facts about Plaintiff's arrest and subsequent incarceration.

After flagging down Officer Ellis, Raldin Divas reported he had been robbed at gun point by three men. [Doc. No. 26-1 at 2]. Officer Ellis contacted Officer Casarez to help translate Mr. Divas' statement from Spanish to English. Id. Meanwhile, Defendant Queen had been dispatched to the scene, and while the three were waiting for Officer Casarez, Mr. Divas primitively described the armed robbery, indicating one man had held a gun to his head while another had searched his pockets and taken his wallet. [Doc. No. 26-2 at 2]. The third man involved in the robbery was tasked with communicating what Mr. Divas was expected to do. Id. After Officer Casarez arrived, Mr. Divas described the suspects and indicated they had walked south toward the Continental Apartment Complex after robbing him. Id.

Defendant Queen's report indicates a woman was with the men, but it is not clear that she participated in the robbery. Nevertheless, a female resident of the apartment where one of the suspects was apprehended was arrested on outstanding warrants and transported to CCDC. [Doc. No. 26-2 at 4]. --------

Defendant Queen determined that Mr. Divas' description of the gunman matched that of one Zachary Hacker with whom Defendant Queen was familiar. Id. Officer Ellis and Defendant Queen went to the Continental Apartment Complex intending to find Hacker. Id. Once there, Defendant Queen observed a young man between two apartment buildings who matched the description of one of the robbery suspects. Id. The man identified himself as Ismael Ruiz. At that point, Plaintiff began walking towards the officers from a field north of the apartment complex. Id. Officer Ellis was the first to contact Plaintiff who identified himself. Id. Plaintiff also appeared to match the description of one of the suspects. Id.

Officer Casarez took Mr. Divas to the Continental Apartment Complex where the latter identified Mr. Ruiz as the person who had given him orders during the robbery and Plaintiff as the person who had actually taken the wallet and papers from his pockets. Id. at 3. Detective Landrum, the detective assigned to investigate the robbery, arrived at the scene and instructed that Plaintiff be secured in the back seat of the patrol car. Officer Ellis secured Ruiz in his patrol car. Id. Detective Landrum encountered some residents who verified the third suspect, Zachery Hatcher, was inside one of the apartments. Mr. Hatcher was located, identified by Mr. Divas as the gunman, and arrested. Id.

When Defendant Queen returned to his patrol car, he observed Plaintiff kicking the back windows. Id. When questioned, Plaintiff stated he needed air and was having an anxiety attack. Defendant Queen rolled down the back window and asked Officer Casarez to standby in case Plaintiff had another anxiety attack. Id. Defendant Queen transported Plaintiff and the female resident of the apartment to CCDC where Plaintiff was booked and processed on a robbery charge. Id. at 4.

Defendant Queen, Officer Ellis and Officer Casarez have submitted affidavits, each stating they had not observed any indication that Plaintiff was injured in any way before, during or after he was transported to CCDC. [Doc. Nos. 26-3, 26-4, 26-5]. Hannah Moses, a detention officer at CCDC, submitted an affidavit stating she had booked Plaintiff into the CCDC on August 15, 2017. [Doc. No. 26-8]. She stated that Plaintiff was not bleeding, was not injured, and was not in need of medical care. Id. The Booking Detail Report includes a Medical Intake Form that indicates Plaintiff had sustained no injuries during arrest or booking. [Doc. No. 26-9 at 3].

Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant Queen's motion for summary judgment. Defendant Queen, on the other hand, has submitted evidence supporting his version of the relevant events. The evidence submitted necessarily leads to a conclusion that Plaintiff could not have submitted evidence to support the essential element of his claim—that Defendant Queen was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need—even if Plaintiff had responded to the motion to dismiss. There is no evidence that Plaintiff had any need for medical treatment. As there is no evidence indicating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, Defendant Queen is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 26], be GRANTED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

The parties are advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court by October 22, 2018. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991).

STATUS OF REFERRAL

This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.

ENTERED this 1^st day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

BERNARD M. JONES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE