United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [ECF #66, ECF #67]
Kari
A. Dooley, United States District Judge.
Preliminary
Statement
The
plaintiff, Davon Miller (“Miller”), brings this
civil rights action against several officers with the Derby
Police Department, Detectives John Netto and Edward Sullivan,
and Patrol Officer Madura (the Derby Defendants”), as
well as several officers with the Ansonia Police Department,
Detective Steve Adcox and Officers McMahon and Guillet (the
Ansonia Defendants”). He claims that the defendants
used excessive force during his arrest and subjected him to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was
detained at the Derby police station in September 2015. On
April 6, 2018, Miller filed an amended complaint, which is
the operative complaint. See ECF No.
38.[1]
The Derby Defendants and the Ansonia Defendants filed
separate motions for summary judgment. Because the motions
raise overlapping issues, the Court issues a single
memorandum of decision. For the reasons set forth below, the
Derby Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED. The Ansonia Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED.
Standard
of Review
The
party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of
demonstrating “that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and [that it] is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
“material” if it “might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law, ” and is
“genuine” if “a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party” based on it.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). The moving party may satisfy its burden “by
showing – that is pointing out to the district court
– that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party’s case.” PepsiCo, Inc. v.
Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2002) (per
curium) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
If a
motion for summary judgment is supported by documentary
evidence and sworn affidavits and “demonstrates the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact, ” the
nonmoving party must do more than vaguely assert the
existence of some unspecified disputed material facts or
“rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated
speculation.” Robinson v. Concentra Health Servs.,
Inc., 781 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
The party opposing the motion for summary judgment
“must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating
the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.”
Id.
In
reviewing the record, the court must “construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and to draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.”
Gary Friedrich Enters., L.L.C. v. Marvel Characters,
Inc., 716 F.3d 302, 312 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted). The court may not, however, “make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence. . . . [because]
[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence,
and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are
jury functions, not those of a judge.” Proctor v.
LeClaire, 846 F.3d 597, 607–08 (2d Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If there is
any evidence in the record from which a reasonable factual
inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party on
the issue on which summary judgment is sought, however,
summary judgment is improper. See Security Ins. Co. of
Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., 391 F.3d 77,
83 (2d Cir. 2004).
The
court reads a pro se party’s papers liberally
and interprets them “to raise the strongest arguments
that they suggest.” Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801
F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Despite this liberal interpretation,
however, allegations unsupported by admissible evidence
“do not create a material issue of fact” and
cannot overcome a properly supported motion for summary
judgment. Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33,
41 (2d Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s
Verified Allegations
The
court begins by summarizing the allegations of the verified
amended complaint. Miller asserts that on September 2, 2015,
defendants Sullivan, Netto, Guillet, McMahon and Madura
“slammed me in a big puddle of water tearing my clothes
off and my shoes without my permission.” While at the
Derby Police station, he claims he was “placed in a
holding cell at approx. 7:10 a.m.” with no shoes or
shirt and that his socks were wet. He claims officers turned
the air conditioning up until such time as they brought him
to be interviewed at approximately 11:32 a.m. Following this
interview, Miller asserts that defendants Sullivan and Adcox
“sent me back to a holding cell with no clothes,
soak[ing] wet … treating me like a[n] animal. I got
sick and proceeded to vomit on myself.” Finally, Miller
assets that “Detectives left me in my own vomit and
refused me a phone call and medical attention until 11:30
p.m. I couldn’t take it no more and cooperated with
detectives.”[2]
Facts[3]
As of
September 2, 2015, Stephen Adcox was employed as a detective
in the Ansonia Police Department and Barry McMahon and
Michael Guillet were employed as police officers in the
Ansonia Police Department. Ansonia Defs’ L.R. 56(a)1
¶ 1. In the early morning hours of September 2, 2015, in
the area of Sunset Drive in Derby, Miller fled from members
of the Ansonia, Derby and Milford Police Departments.
Id. ¶ 5. Ansonia Police Officers Guillet and
McMahon assisted these officers in pursuing Miller because
Miller was a suspect in multiple residential burglaries in
Derby, one of which had occurred earlier that morning in
Derby and others which had occurred in Ansonia and Derby
during the month of August 2015. Id. ¶ 9;
McMahon Aff. ¶ 4, Ex. B; Guillet Aff. ¶ 4, Ex. C.
Officer
Guillet caught up to Miller on Sunset Drive, ordered him to
get down on the ground, grabbed his arm and physically moved
him to the ground. Guillet Aff. ¶ 5. Once Miller was on
the ground, Officer Guillet secured his arms/hands behind his
back in handcuffs, with the assistance of another Ansonia
police officer. Id. ¶ 6. Miller was wearing a
sweater at some point before Officer Guillet apprehended him
but lost the sweater as he was being pursued. Ansonia
Defs’ L.R. 56(a)1 ¶ 7. Thus, at the time of his
arrest, Miller did not have a shirt on. Id. ¶
6.
Officer
McMahon did not apprehend, handcuff or make physical contact
with Miller. McMahaon Aff. ¶ 5. Officer McMahon did
observe Miller after Officer Guillet had detained him in
handcuffs on Sunset Drive. Id. Neither Officer
Guillet, nor Officer McMahon observed a puddle or body of
water in the area where Miller was apprehended. Ansonia
Defs’ L.R. 56(a)1 ¶ 9. When Officer McMahon left
the scene, Miller was sitting on a curb in handcuffs.
McMahaon Aff. ¶ 10. Officer McMahon did not go to the
Derby Police Department or see Miller again at any time that
day. Id.
Officer
Guillet was not involved in transporting Miller to the Derby
Police Department and had no further contact with Miller that
day. Guillet Aff. ¶¶ 11-12. Ansonia Detective Adcox
was not on duty or present at the time of Miller’s
apprehension, arrest or transport to the Derby police
station. Ansonia Defs’ L.R. 56(a)1 ¶ 21; Adcox
Aff. ¶ 3, Ex. A.
The
Derby Defendants were not involved in or present for the
arrest or apprehension of Miller on September 2, 2015. Derby
Defs’ L.R. 56(a)1 ¶ 1. Derby Police Officer Madura
transported Miller to the Derby Police Department after
Miller had been placed under arrest. Madura Aff. ¶ 2,
Ex. A, ECF No. 66-3. After Miller arrived at the police
department, Officer Madura had no further contact with him.
Id. ¶ 4.
The
Derby Defendants did not make the temperature in the holding
cell area at Derby police station colder when Miller was
confined in that area on September 2, 2015. Derby Defs’
L.R. 56(a)1 ¶ 2. Nor do they have any knowledge that any
other individual attempted to make the holding cell area
colder on that date. Id. The Derby Defendants have
no knowledge of Miller vomiting or requesting medical
assistance during his confinement at the Derby police station
in September 2015. Id. ¶ 3. Derby Police
Detectives Netto and Sullivan interviewed Miller at the Derby
police station at approximately 11:30 a.m. on September 2,
2015. Id. ¶ 4. During that interview, Miller
received a shirt. Id.
At
Miller’s request, Derby Detectives Netto and Sullivan
began a second interview at the Derby Police Department at
approximately 11:00 p.m. on September 2, 2015. Ansonia
Defs’ L.R. 56(a)1 ¶ 18; Ex. E, DVD, Second
Interview. Miller requested that his mother be present for
that interview, Id. ¶ 17, so Detectives Netto
and Sullivan waited with Miller until his mother arrived.
Id. ¶19. After Miller’s mother’s
arrival at approximately 11:46 p.m., Ansonia Police Detective
Adcox entered the interview room. Id. ¶ 20.
The
interview continued until approximately 1:42 a.m. on
September 3, 2015. Id. ΒΆ 22. Miller was wearing
a short-sleeved shirt during the interview and did not
complain about the temperature, that he had vomited or felt
...