United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
James
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
Garrett Miller-Cunningham, who is represented by counsel,
brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 1.) Defendant Michael MacAllister, [1] moves for summary
judgment, and Plaintiff opposes. (Docs. 37, 42.)
I.
Background
In his
Complaint, Plaintiff relevantly alleged as follows. On March
4, 2016, Plaintiff was approached and questioned by Defendant
MacAllister (hereinafter Defendant), a former City of
Maricopa police officer, while Plaintiff was at a Circle K
convenience store. (Doc. 1 at 10-11.) When Defendant learned
that Plaintiff was carrying a handgun, Defendant arrested
Plaintiff for allegedly unlawfully carrying a firearm after
having been convicted of a felony, even though Plaintiff has
never been convicted of a felony. (Id. at 12-13.)
Defendant transported Plaintiff to the Pinal County Jail
where he was booked and incarcerated. (Id. at 15.)
Plaintiff was incarcerated for approximately three months
before the charge against him was dismissed. (Id. at
18-20.)
Plaintiff
asserted claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution. (Id. at 27). He requested
declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, costs, and
attorney fees. (Id. at 29.)
Defendant
previously sought to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
claiming entitlement to qualified immunity. The Court denied
the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that “factual
allegations in the Complaint are incomplete as to what
information was known to Defendant at the time of
arrest.” (Doc. 28 at 7.) Accordingly, the Court could
not decide whether qualified immunity was appropriate at the
motion-to-dismiss stage. (Id.)
Defendant
now seeks summary judgment on the ground that he is entitled
to qualified immunity. (Doc. 37.)
II.
Summary Judgment Standard
A court
must grant summary judgment “if 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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The movant bears
the initial responsibility of presenting the basis for its
motion and identifying those portions of the record, together
with affidavits, if any, that it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
If the
movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, the
nonmovant need not produce anything. Nissan Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Co.,
Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if
the movant meets its initial responsibility, the burden
shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a
factual dispute and that the fact in contention is material,
i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 250 (1986);
see Triton Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d
1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995). The nonmovant need not establish
a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor, First
Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.
253, 288-89 (1968); however, it must “come forward with
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)
(internal citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1).
At
summary judgment, the judge's function is not to weigh
the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court must believe the
nonmovant's evidence and draw all inferences in the
nonmovant's favor. Id. at 255. The court need
consider only the cited materials, but it may consider any
other materials in the record. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3).
III.
Facts
On
March 4, 2016 at 10:45 p.m., while on patrol, former City of
Maricopa police officer Defendant MacAllister was dispatched
to a Circle K convenience store in the City of Maricopa on
reports from Plaintiff that he was being followed by a
“gang of Mexicans.” (Doc. 38 ¶ 3; Doc. 41
¶ 3.) Plaintiff stated to dispatch that he had a
“20-round clip” in “storage, ” and if
he had his “AK pistol, ” he would have
“enough for everybody.” (Id.) Plaintiff
admitted to having a Glock 23 handgun in his possession and
that the weapon was in his waistband. (Id.)
Defendant
and Officer Burnias arrived at the Circle K and approached
Plaintiff, who raised his hands and showed the officers he
had a firearm-a Glock 23 .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun.
(Doc. 38 ¶ 4, Doc. 41 ¶ 4.) Defendant took
possession of the firearm and conducted a stolen firearms
check. (Doc. 38 ¶ 5, Doc. 41 ¶ 5.) Plaintiff told
the officers that he was being followed and his cousin had
“put a hit on him” from the drug cartels. (Doc.
38 ¶ 7, Doc. 41 ¶ 7.) Plaintiff pointed to a couple
getting gasoline and stated that they had followed him from
California. (Doc. 38 ¶ 8, Doc. 41 ¶ 8.) When the
officers asked Plaintiff why he thought the couple were
following him, he became agitated and told Officer Burnias to
“just shoot” him and “get it over
with.” (Doc. 38 ¶ 9, Doc. 41 ¶ 9.) Plaintiff
identified his vehicle for the Officers and Defendant
approached the vehicle and noted a broken rear window. (Doc.
38 ¶ 10, Doc. 41 ¶ 10.) When Defendant asked about
the broken rear window, Plaintiff told him to stop asking
“dumb-ass questions” and asked for his firearm
back. (Doc. 38 ¶ 11, Doc. 41 ¶ 11.) Plaintiff
stated he did not trust the Officers and called 9-1-1
dispatch, claiming the officers might “plant”
something in his vehicle. (Doc. 38 ¶ 12, Doc. 41 ¶
12.) Defendant disassembled the firearm and placed the
disassembled pieces in the back of Plaintiff's vehicle.
(Doc. 38 ¶ 13, Doc. 41 ¶ 13.) Defendant told
Plaintiff he wished him a better day and the Officers left
the scene. (Doc. 38 ¶ 14, Doc. 41 ¶ 14.)
Shortly
after the first incident, Defendant was dispatched to the
same scene, this time stemming from a complaint that a
subject was standing outside the Circle K convenience store
entrance allegedly holding a gun in his hand and acting
suspiciously. (Doc. 38 ¶ 15.) Plaintiff denies that he
ever held or brandished his gun, but does not dispute with
any evidence that Defendant received a report that Plaintiff
was holding a gun in his hand. (Doc. 41 ¶ 15.) Defendant
and Officer Burnias returned to the Circle K and approached
the subject of the complaint, who turned out to be Plaintiff,
and detained him for questioning. (Doc. 38 ¶ 16, Doc. 41
¶ 16.) Defendant spoke with Plaintiff, who was in
possession of his reassembled firearm. (Doc. 38 ¶ 17,
Doc. 41 ¶ 17.) Plaintiff told the officers he had not
pulled his gun out. (Doc. 38 ¶ 18, Doc. 41 ¶ 18.)
Defendant
spoke with a Circle K employee, who stated that Plaintiff had
been outside the Circle K holding a gun in his hand, staring
at passing vehicles, that customers had complained about
Plaintiff, and that she wanted Plaintiff to leave the
property. (Doc. 38 ¶¶ 19-20, Doc. 41 ¶ 20.))
Plaintiff denies that he held or brandished his gun during
this time, but does not dispute that this is what the Circle
K employee told Defendant. (Doc. 41 ¶ 19.)
Defendant
then conducted a “wants and warrants” check on
Plaintiff that came back negative. (Doc. 38 ¶ 21, Doc.
41 ¶ 21.) Defendant then conducted a prior felony
conviction check through the dispatch center and was advised
that Plaintiff had multiple felony convictions, including a
conviction for grand theft of an automobile. (Doc. 38 ¶
22.)[2]
From his personal experience, Defendant believed dispatch
information on a suspect's prior felony record was
reliable and trustworthy. (Id.) The dispatch center
stated that it was forwarding the criminal history report to
Maricopa Police Department Sergeant Paulsen, who was also on
the scene. (Id. ¶ 23)[3] Prior to that evening,
Defendant received information from the same dispatch center
on suspects' warrants, license status, and prior
convictions and had never before received incorrect
information. (Doc. 38 ¶ 24; Doc. 41 ¶ 24.)
As
Defendant continued talking to Plaintiff, Sergeant Paulsen
informed Defendant that Paulsen had confirmed that Plaintiff
had prior felony convictions. (Doc. 38 ¶
25.)[4]Defendant believed Sergeant Paulsen's
information was based on a review of the criminal history
report provided to Paulsen by the dispatch center.
(Id. ¶ 26.)[5] Defendant and Sergeant Paulsen,
Defendant's on-scene supervisor, have worked together
before, and Defendant considers him a reliable Sergeant.
(Id. ¶ 27.)[6] Sergeant Paulsen told Plaintiff that he
had reviewed the prior felony convictions, [7] but Plaintiff
denied that he had a felony and repeatedly insisted to the
officers that he did not have a felony. (Doc. 38 ¶
28.)[8]
Plaintiff
was then arrested on a criminal prohibited possessor charge
pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §
13-3102(A)(4).[9] (Doc. 38 ¶ 1; Doc. 41 ¶ 1.)
Defendant asserts that Officer Burnias placed handcuffs on
Plaintiff and that Defendant took Plaintiff into custody from
there, but Plaintiff asserts that Defendant placed handcuffs
on him. (Doc. 38 ¶ 29; Doc. 41 ¶ 29.) The Court
will construe this dispute in favor of Plaintiff for the
purpose of deciding the motion for summary judgment, and will
assume Defendant placed handcuffs on Plaintiff. Shortly after
the arrest, Defendant wrote a probable cause statement
indicating Plaintiff had prior felony convictions, including
a 2007 ...