United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Michael Broyles brought this action against several Anchorage
Police Department (“APD”) officers and State of
Alaska Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
employees, alleging excessive force and unreasonable seizures
in violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the torts of false arrest, false
imprisonment, and excessive force under Alaska common
law.[1],
[2]
Broyles' lawsuit stems from his two October 2012 arrests
and his subsequent incarcerations at the Anchorage
Correctional Complex (the “Anchorage jail”). At
Dkt. No. 52, Officers Jonathan Gould, Nelson Price, Boaz
Gianson, and Christopher Simmons (collectively, the
“APD Defendants”), now move for summary judgment
on Broyles' claims against them.[3] Broyles opposes the motion
at Dkt. No. 71. For the reasons discussed below, the APD
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
II.
BACKGROUND
The
Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of
this case. To the extent additional facts are necessary to
the disposition of the present motion, the Court draws those
facts from the parties' affidavits and exhibits.
A.
Broyles' First Arrest
On the
evening of Friday, October 19, 2012, APD dispatched officers,
including Officer Gould, to Broyles' home located at 9499
Brayton Drive, Space 145 in response to several 911 calls and
police reports from Broyles' friends and family
indicating that he was suffering from a mental disturbance,
engaging in dangerous and menacing behavior, and
contemplating suicide.[4]The officers were directed to take Broyles
into custody and to transport him to the nearby Providence
Alaska Medical Center Psychiatric Emergency Room for a
psychiatric evaluation pursuant to Alaska Stat.
47.30.705.[5]
Upon
their arrival at Broyles' home, the officers made contact
with Broyles, and Officer Gould attempted to take him into
custody. However, when Officer Gould took hold of
Broyles' hands, Broyles resisted, pushing away from
Officer Gould and retreating into his home.[6] This short
struggle damaged Officer Gould's radio
earpiece.[7] The officers departed the area and
obtained a warrant to arrest Broyles on charges of resisting
arrest and malicious destruction of government
property.[8]
The
following morning, on October 20, 2012, APD dispatched
officers to serve the warrant and arrest
Broyles.[9] Broyles willingly exited his home and was
placed in the back of a police cruiser by Officer Price
without incident.[10] The arresting officers allege that
Broyles appeared to have a mental disorder and stated that he
wanted help.[11] Broyles claims that on the way to the
Anchorage jail, Officer Price parked the police cruiser in a
parking lot and beat him before putting him in leg
restraints.[12] Broyles claims that in doing so, Officer
Price and an unnamed APD officer punched him in the face,
threw him to the pavement, kicked, and beat
him.[13] The officers then transported Broyles to
the Anchorage jail.[14]
B.
Broyles' Second Arrest
Broyles
was released from jail on October 22, 2012 without money or a
functioning cell phone and walked to a nearby convenience
store located at a Chevron gas station.[15] Shortly
thereafter, APD received a 911 call from the convenience
store reporting a white male engaging in threatening behavior
and refusing to leave the store when asked by Chevron
employees.[16] The employee reported that the male,
later identified as Broyles, was scaring customers, appeared
to be “on something, ” and was
“tweaking.”[17]
Officers
Simmons and Andrew Meier arrived at the Chevron station to
find Broyles crouched on the floor of the convenience
store.[18] Broyles was uncooperative with the
officers' orders and refused to stand to be taken into
custody.[19] Officers Simmons and Meier attempted to
handcuff Broyles, and a struggle ensued as Broyles resisted
arrest and attempted to fight the officers.[20] Officers
Gianson and Shawn Davies arrived at the Chevron to assist in
the arrest as Broyles continued fighting the
officers.[21] After a struggle lasting approximately
seven minutes, during which Broyles suffered numerous minor
injuries, four officers arrested Broyles and placed him in
total restraints.[22] Broyles was then transported to Alaska
Regional Hospital where he was treated before being remanded
to the Anchorage jail.[23]
C.
Procedural History
On
October 10, 2014, Broyles sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and Alaska common law, alleging unreasonable seizures and
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, false
arrest, and false imprisonment by Officers Gould, Price,
Gianson, Simmons, and a John Doe APD officer.[24] Broyles also
sued Debbie Miller, a DOC official, and a Jane Doe DOC
official for injuries suffered during his time in jail.
Miller was subsequently dismissed from this
lawsuit.[25]
Broyles'
complaint brings four causes of action against the APD
Defendants, which can be summarized as follows:
(1) An unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, and false arrest and false imprisonment in
violation of Alaska common law against Officers Gould, Price,
and a John Doe APD officer for the first arrest on October
20, 2012.[26]
(2) Excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and
Alaska Stat. 12.25.070 against Officer Price for allegedly
beating him while transporting him to the Anchorage jail
after the first arrest on October 20, 2012.[27]
(3) An unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, and false arrest and false imprisonment in
violation of Alaska common law against Officers Gianson and
Simmons for the second arrest on October 22,
2012.[28]
(4) Excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and
Alaska Stat. 12.25.070 against Officers Gianson and Simmons
for injuries Broyles sustained during the second arrest on
October 22, 2012.[29]
Broyles
claims that as a result of the APD Defendants' alleged
use of excessive force, he has suffered a permanent deforming
injury to his finger which prevents him from obtaining
employment, and numerous other physical and mental injuries
from his imprisonment.[30] Broyles further claims that he has
incurred and will continue to incur extensive medical
expenses to treat those injuries and requests $50, 000, 000
in compensatory damages and $100, 000, 000 in punitive
damages.[31] The APD Defendants have now moved for
summary judgment on all of Broyles' claims against
them.[32]
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary
judgment is appropriate where, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, [33] “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.”[34] A dispute about a material fact is
“genuine” only if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party.[35] “When the party moving for summary
judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must
come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the same evidence were to be
uncontroverted at trial.”[36] When the nonmoving party
would bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may
satisfy its burden “by showing . . . that there is an
absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's
case.”[37] The non-moving party must then
“respond . . . by setting out specific facts showing a
genuine issue for trial.”[38] The trial court must
accordingly determine whether there is sufficient evidence
supporting the alleged factual dispute to require the trier
of fact “to resolve the parties' differing versions
of the truth at trial.”[39]
IV.
DISCUSSION
The APD
Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity
for any constitutional violations under the Supreme
Court's test in Saucier v. Katz, [40] and to
immunity for any tortious violations of Alaska's common
law under Alaska Stat. 9.65.070(d)(2).[41] In support of
their motion, the APD Defendants filed numerous affidavits,
[42]
an audio recording of Broyles' first arrest and transport
to jail captured by Officer Price's uniform-mounted audio
recording device, [43] an audio recording of Broyles'
second arrest captured by Officer Simmons'
uniform-mounted audio recording device, [44] and a video
recording of Broyles' second arrest captured by a Chevron
gas station security camera.[45]
Along
with his response in opposition, Broyles filed affidavits
generally describing his peaceful character and reiterating
his alleged mistreatment at the hands of the APD
Defendants.[46]
A.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Qualified Immunity
Broyles
brings the majority of his claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Section 1983 creates a private right of action for
those plaintiff's seeking to redress and remedy
constitutional wrongs caused by those acting “under the
color of state law.”[47] Thus, “[t]o state a
claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege two essential
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
color of State law.”[48]
Qualified
immunity is an affirmative defense available to § 1983
defendants who can show that they acted with a reasonable
belief in the constitutionality of their challenged
conduct.[49] Under the Supreme Court's test for
qualified immunity articulated in Saucier v. Katz, a
reviewing court must first consider 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?”[50] If no constitutional right was
violated, the defendant is entitled to qualified
immunity.[51]If a constitutional right was violated,
then the court must determine whether the right was
“clearly established.”[52] The Supreme Court has
since held that a reviewing court may “exercise their
discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the
qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in
light of the circumstances in the particular case at
hand.”[53]
In the
present case, the APD Defendants concede that they were
acting under color of state law while arresting and
transporting Broyles. Therefore, the Court need only
determine if there is sufficient evidence to support
Broyles' claim that the APD Defendants violated
Broyles' constitutional rights and/or whether that right
was clearly established.
B.
Claim 1 - Broyles' First Arrest
Broyles'
first claim, against Gould and Price, relates to his first
arrest on October 20, 2012.[54] Essentially, Broyles claims
that Gould and Price never had probable cause to arrest him,
and that they therefore violated his Fourth Amendment right
against unreasonable seizures and committed the common law
torts of false arrest and false imprisonment when they
arrested him on October 20.
In
their motion for summary judgment, the APD Defendants note
that Broyles' first arrest took place pursuant to a
facially valid arrest warrant based on probable
cause.[55] Broyles, however, claims that because
Officers Gould and Price did not follow the procedures of
Alaska Stat. 47.30.705-for example, by not transporting him
to the nearest psychiatric facility for evaluation-the arrest
was unlawful.[56]
As to
Broyles' constitutional claim, “by virtue of its
‘incorporation' into the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Fourth Amendment requires the States to provide a fair and
reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for
any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, ” such
as an arrest.[57] “Whatever procedure a State may
adopt, it must provide a fair and reliable determination of
probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial
restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by
a judicial officer either before or promptly after
arrest.”[58]
Broyles'
false arrest and imprisonment claims are governed by a
similar rule-whether the arrest was made with proper legal
authority.[59] “False arrest and false
imprisonment are not separate torts. A false arrest is one
way to commit false imprisonment; since an arrest involves
restraint, it always involves
imprisonment.”[60] Under Alaska law, “the elements of
the false arrest-imprisonment tort are (1) a restraint upon
the plaintiff's freedom, (2) without proper legal
authority.”[61]
Contrary
to his argument, Broyles was not actually arrested pursuant
to Alaska Stat. 47.30.705 on October 19, 2012.
Broyles' first arrest occurred the following day, on
October 20, and was effectuated pursuant to a facially-valid
arrest warrant supported by a magistrate's finding of
probable cause.[62] The Court concludes as a matter of law
that Broyles' first arrest was lawfully executed and
finds no constitutional or state tort violation. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS the APD Defendants' motion for summary
judgment with respect to Broyles' first claim.
Broyles' first claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
C.
Claim 2 - The Transport of Broyles to the Anchorage
Jail
Broyles'
second claim alleges excessive force by Office Price and an
unnamed APD officer. Broyles claims that after arresting him
on October 20, 2012, Price and the unnamed APD officer parked
the police cruiser and beat him during the transport to the
Anchorage jail. Broyles describes the alleged beating in his
affidavit, stating:
Officer Price pulled into a parking lot. He came to my door
and punched me in the face without saying a word. I was then
tossed to the pavement unable to break the fall with my arms.
Suddenly, two police officers were on me pushing and shoving
and kicking while I was on the pavement. Then the leg
restraints were placed on me by two officers.[63]
Broyles
states further, “I shouted in protest to what had
happened to me as Officer Price was driving. I protested even
louder once I discovered our true destination was the
Anchorage jail as we arrived.”
For the
application of force during arrest or detention to be
considered “excessive, ” it must be so
unreasonable as to constitute a deprivation of the
individual's right under the Fourth Amendment to be free
from “unreasonable searches and
seizures.”[64] A reviewing Court must determine whether
the officer's actions were objectively reasonable
“from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the
scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight”
and allowing “for the fact that police officers are
often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances
that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving-about the
amount of force that is necessary in a particular
situation.”[65]
As the
Alaska Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he standard for
excessive force in Alaska is nearly identical” to the
federal rule.[66] Alaska Stat. 12.25.070 provides that
“[a] peace officer or private person may not subject a
person to greater restraint than is necessary and proper for
the arrest and detention of the person.” Alaska Stat.
11.81.370(a) provides in part that a peace officer “may
use nondeadly force and may threaten to use deadly force when
and to the extent the officer reasonably believe is it
necessary to make an arrest, to terminate an escape or
attempted escape from custody, or to make a lawful
stop.”
In
their motion for summary judgment, the APD Defendants refute
Broyles' claim, stating that though they placed leg
restraints on Broyles to keep his hands behind his back
during transport, no beating ever took place.[67] They submit
an audio recording of the October 20, 2012 arrest and
transport of Broyles taken by a recording device mounted on
Officer Price's uniform in support of their
argument.[68]
“The
first step in assessing the constitutionality of [a police
officer's] actions is to determine the relevant
facts.”[69] When the plaintiff's version of
events differs substantially from the defendant's, courts
are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences
“in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
[summary judgment] motion.”[70]
Officer
Price's audio recording of Broyles' arrest and
transport belies Broyles' claim that he was beaten while
being transported to the Anchorage jail on October 20. The
audio recording, which is roughly 51 minutes long, begins
with police knocking at the door of Broyles' house to
take him into custody.[71] The APD officers explain to Broyles
that they are taking him to “get him some
help.”[72] Broyles is verbally cooperative
throughout and agrees to be handcuffed and placed into the
back of the police cruiser.[73] At one point, Broyles is heard
asking to be handcuffed with his hands in front of his body,
but the officers explain that it is APD policy to transport
arrestees with their hands handcuffed behind their
backs.[74] Broyles then verbally agrees to be
placed in the rear seat of the cruiser with his hands
handcuffed behind his back.[75]
During
the drive to the Anchorage jail, Broyles-still handcuffed
with his hands behind his back-adjusted his position to
relieve pressure on his right hand because he previously
injured it by punching a wall in his home.[76] Broyles
writes in his affidavit, “[w]ith my arms locked behind
my back, the pain in my injured right hand was tremendous.
So, I adjusted the handcuffs downward to beneath my upper
thighs.”[77] Officer Price can be heard on the
recording repeatedly warning Broyles to stop adjusting his
position.[78] After several warnings Price explains to
Broyles, “[y]our hands have to be behind your back.
“If you can't work with me on that, then . . . I
have to make sure your hands stay behind your
back.”[79] The officers again repeatedly warn
Broyles to stop reaching down to his feet in an effort to
move his hands from behind his back.[80] The officers then can be
heard pulling Broyles out of the vehicle and instructing him
to cooperate with their commands as they place him in leg
restraints. After securing Broyles' legs, the officers
then instruct him to sit in the police cruiser for transport
to the Anchorage jail.[81]
After
the application of leg restraints-and during the remainder of
the drive-Officer Price and Broyles engage in casual
conversation.[82] Though Broyles responds incoherently at
times, at no point does he voice any sign of distress or
discomfort with his treatment by the officers, and he
indicates no surprise upon arrival at the Anchorage
jail.[83]
Having
reviewed Officer Price's audio recording, the Court
concludes that Officer Price acted reasonably and did not
apply greater force than necessary during the transport of
Broyles on October 20, 2012. While Broyles was clearly
unwilling or unable to converse normally with the officers or
to respond to basic commands, he showed no signs of the
distress indicative of the type of violent treatment alleged
in his complaint and affidavit. Moreover, Broyles provides
the Court with no evidence to buttress his claims that
Officer Price, or any of the other arresting officers, beat
him during his first arrest or transport. Accordingly, the
Court finds no constitutional or state tort violation and
GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the APD Defendants on
Broyles' second claim. Broyles second claim is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
D.
Claim 3 - Broyles' Second Arrest
Like
his claim involving his first arrest, Broyles' asserts
that his second arrest was in violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights and constitutes the torts of false arrest
and imprisonment because it was not lawfully based on
probable cause. Broyles claims that he walked to the Chevron
station after leaving the Anchorage jail hoping “to
borrow a cup of coffee and a phone call.”[84] Broyles
concedes that he “must have been very creepy to look
at, ” after his release from jail, and states, “I
was not in my right mind. I just went in the back of the
store and slumped against a cooler.”[85] Nevertheless,
Broyles does not believe that Officers Simmons and Gianson
had probable cause to arrest him.
In
their motion for summary judgment, the APD Defendants claim
that (1) they had authority to detain Broyles for a mental
evaluation under Alaska Stat. 47.30.705, and (2) the
arresting officers had probable cause ...