Pettis v. Jones et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:23-cv-00458

AUSTIN DEVON PETTIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
VS. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
)
FNU JONES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 21] and the Counterclaims by Defendants Peterson, Jones, Simpson, and Smith [Doc. 11].
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On or about July 25, 2023, pro se Plaintiff Austin Devon Pettis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through an unverified Complaint, alleging the violation of his civil
rights by Defendants Dejuan Jones, Jail Sergeant; Devonte Peterson, Tactical Response Unit
(TRU) Team Officer; Tonya Smith, Deputy Sheriff; Robert Simpson, TRU Team Officer; and Gary
McFadden, Sheriff; while Plaintiff was detained at the Mecklenburg County Jail (the “Jail’’) in
Charlotte, North Carolina. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff sued Defendants in their individual and official
capacities. [Id. at 2-4]. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment individual capacity claims against
Defendant Jones based on his alleged use of excessive force and against Defendants Smith,
Peterson, and Simpson based on their alleged failure to protect Plaintiff from harm passed initial
review. The Court also allowed Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment official capacity claim against
Defendant McFadden based on an alleged Sheriff's Office policy condoning violence against

detainees to pass initial review. [Doc. 9]. Defendants Jones, Peterson, Simpson, and Smith filed

INFORMATION
GPO

ia) Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 10

counterclaims against Plaintiff for assault.' [Doc. 11].

On August 21, 2024, Defendants moved for summary judgment. [Doc. 21]. Defendants
argue that summary judgment should be granted because the force used by Defendant Jones was
reasonable; Defendants Peterson, Simpson, and Smith did not fail to protect the Plaintiff; and
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that a policy or custom caused the alleged violation of his rights.
[Doc. 22 at 2]. Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. [Id. at 12-16,
18-21]. In support of their summary judgment motion, Defendants submitted a brief; the
Declaration of Defendant Jones; and excerpts from Plaintiff's deposition in this matter. [Docs. 22,
22-2 through 22-4].

On August 27, 2024, the Court entered an order in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison,

528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the requirements for filing a response to the
summary judgment motion and of the manner in which evidence could be submitted to the Court.
[Doc. 23]. The Plaintiff was specifically advised that he “may not rely upon mere allegations or
denials of allegations in his pleadings to defeat a summary judgment motion.” [Id. at 2]. Rather,
he must support his assertion that a fact is genuinely disputed by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” [Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a))].
The Court further advised that:

An affidavit is a written statement under oath; that is, a statement

prepared in writing and sworn before a notary public. An unsworn

statement, made and signed under the penalty of perjury, may also

be submitted. Affidavits or statements must be presented by
Plaintiff to this Court no later than fourteen (14) days from the date

1 Plaintiff never answered these counterclaims, and Defendants did not move for entry of default.
Defendants stipulate to the dismissal of their counterclaims if the Court grants their summary judgment
motion. [Doc. 22 at 2].

2

Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 10


					 	 							 															 								!	"		#"	"	$				%				& 												' 	()*		+,+#														-.		/0	1			234	5678	.		-9:6;<	=	349	>?	-<	;.	<	@	@		.	3-.		.	34	A@	-<	?	78	4	.	6	@	<	?	4	-	.	<	:4?	B	-;9C48	=	7-=	<	D4	8	4=	C6;=	4	E<	?	?		?	<	F4?	B	?	4-9	.	6	.	34	9<	=	:<	=	=	-?		6@		.	3<	=		?	-E=	7<	.		-G-<	;=	.		H4@	4;9-;.	=	1	I		J		$			%*		;	K4C.	4:L48		MNO		PQPRO		.	34	5678	.		G8	-;.	49	>?	-<	;.	<	@	@	S	=		:6.	<	6;	@	68		-99<	.	<	6;-?		.	<	:4	.	6	8	4=	C6; .	6	H4@	4;9-;.	=	S		=	7::-8	B	T	79G:4;.		:6.	<	6;*			&								 	((*		+,+#			 				U	+ V		WX	()X	+,+#	% Y	 	$				 						*		&  *						 		.	6	H4@	4;9-;.	=	S		=	7::-8	B	T	79G:4;.		:6.	<	6;	-;9	.	34Y 		94-9?	<	;4	.	6	96	=	6	3-=		4ZC<	8	491			[?	=	6O		-=		;6.	49O		>?	-<	;.	<	@	@	S	=		56:C?	-<	;.		E-=		;6.		D48	<	@	<	49	68		 &				  			\	 ]	\ *		 		 *			 					 	\			 				' 	^  			U		*		W_!		 	#W*		#W_`	WW		#				+,+("																			 	 		 			 							 						 \	]	  	AE34;	.	34	-?	?	4G-.	<	6;=		a6;.	-<	;49	.	348	4<	;	-8	4	L-=	49	6;	C48	=	6;-?		F;6E?	49G4Ib	1			[=		=	7a3O		>?	-<	;.	<	@	@	S	=		\		 				 		 										 								\*		&		& 			 		\U  				c	c	d	 	efghigji	kl	jmnc	moK7::-8	B	T	79G:4;.		=	3-?	?		L4	G8	-;.	49	A<	@		.	34	:6D-;.		=	36E=		.	3-.		.	348	4	<	=		;6	G4;7<	;4	9<	=	C7.	4-=		.	6	-;B	:-.	48	<	-?		@	-a.		-;9	.	34	:6D-;.		<	=		4;.	<	.	?	49	.	6	T	79G:4;.		-=		-	:-.	.	48		6@		?	-E1	I		p491		q1		5<	D1		>1	rst	-b	1			[	@	-a.	7-?		9<	=	C7.	4	<	=		G4;7<	;4	A<	@		.	34	4D<	94;a4	<	=		=	7a3	.	3-.	 		]	\		D48	9<	a.		@	68		.	34	;6;:6D<	;G	C-8	.	B1	I		u 					v	 	\	v\*				*		#))	w	'		+#+*		+#_		(W_!"				u					 			\															 									 		 		&				234	:6D-;.		3-=		.	34	A<	;<	.	<	-?		8	4=	C6;=	<	L<	?	<	.	B	6@		<	;@	68	:<	;G	.	34	9<	=	.	8	<	a.		a678	.		6@		.	34	L-=	<	=		@	68		<	.	=			*	 	 			\												 			*	 					*		& 					 		*	Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 10


					 																				 		 										 !		!					"#	$	!	%			#	&	'		( 	)	( 	*+		+		(			,--	.+	/+		01-	020	3	14567	3										7	+	8										9					 			9									  		*		+			:	 	;$	#	<	=" 	#			#			$	#	>		;!		!			#				>?!		#	>#		#	>$		!				 !		!				$		#	$	!	%	&	'		@	+				022	+		0+		:	  		*				 			9* 	 	 							 								* 			 				 	 			9		A	9 	+			@	+				02,+			B				  		*			9		** 	;$	;$		""$	<	CD"#		"#	!		?!	#	>	!	#	#	!		#		=D;	!	#	!		E		D"#		E		%	#	$	!	%	%	<		#	$	D	 									D%	$	#	!		E			#	!	; %	#	!			FE		D"!			!		E		!	#	$	$	#	$	<		?$		E		$		#	>$	"#	$	!	%		'	!		#	>	$	$	D&			/ 		+	G		HD&		I&		J!	K&		L&		MNO	P	O	QP	O	P	&			J $	#			=D	#		;#				#	$?$	$	#	D	!		$		E	$		%		%	!		E		$		$	 "#		&	'		R			/ 	ST	+		@	+		+		U	+	V+	W		&	X		E		YYL	210	Z+	0	1-,	15[	3	,		(		+		2[[[7	+			:	  		*			9			*			9 		K!	D	$	"?>!	>=$		%	C$	< %	D$	#$	K$	D!	#		$	#	>"K!	;$	#	<&	'	\		,--	.+	/+				2,5]				/		V +		( 	*+		+		(			( 9		S+	,5	Z+	0	51[	5153	,		(		+		144^7	+			_		9				9		A	9 		 			9			9									 											 		 	 				  		*		+			\		,--`&	a&		#		bMM&			H#		E		>?K$	E		=" 	#			K!	?D	!		#	>	%	!	>#		"	#			K$	%		#		#	>	"K!		;$	#	<%	<	!			#	>$		!				c	 !	X		D!		;#				#		#	>			#		&	'		/			+		d				^^[	.+	/+		0-2	05[	12-	/+	(	+	1-64	1--6	3	2[[-7	+			e	e	e	f	 ghijkhl	mhinopqkrs: 		 	 		T							 		 	 				t							 u 		*				 			 		+	Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 10


		 	 	 																															 					!			"								#					$		%																&					 	'																														(	'			 												)*	+,	-.	,	/	/	0	1		234	1	5267	8,	1	37	9		:/	/	,	;67	<											+-4	=1	+,	4	1	3>6.	?,	-@A	B				 !				!	C#				)*	+,	-.	,	/	/		=D+1		,	-	E	?,	1	F						'					#							 							#				B	+-4		&				<			=2*	6+1	6	*	6+86	E	?,	>F		+*	3-6A	B		E	G3;A		HH!				IF	A			J?6	1	,	.	5+.	,	3-	=61	;+*	+.	64	/	7	3>	.	?67	6B	+-4							=?+4	+	4,	1	.	57	K+-;6B	D,	.	?	:/	/	,	;67		L+-@/	37	4A			E	G3;A		HH!					C#				M	-	7	61	23-1	6	.	3	.	?,	1		4,	1	.	57	K+-;69		:/	/	,	;67		L+-@/	37	4	>+46	+-	=			(						B									 !				N#				$								'																												(	%					 (	 								 !	C			O	"						P					 !			N!	Q#																												R																			%				S				O#				T		R 		%"	UV											:/	/	,	;67		L+-@/	37	40	1		=			(			61	;37	.	1	B	;+*	*		3-	?,	1		7	+4,	3	 				%									S					OO	!	C#							W				 												+1	X64	)*	+,	-.	,	/	/	9		=Y?+.	0	1		@3,	-@	3-ZB			 !				Q#												&				 	1	+[,	-@=\+-9	*	6.	0	1	@3,	-.	?6?+*	*	D+[+-4.	+*	XA	B]1	)*	+,	-.	,	/	/	D+*	X642+1	.	:/	/	,	;67	Y,	*	*	,	+>1	9					 													T						 					 		=^	51	.		.	7	,	64	.	325.		?,	1		?+-41		3-	E	)*	+,	-.	,	/	/	F		+-4	=/	37	;6E	4F		E	)*	+,	-.	,	/	/	0	1	#								#	&			'				'			3-	E	?,	>F	A	B		S		#			)*	+,	-.	,	/	/		7	61	23-4649		=Y?3+9		>+-9		*	,	X69		[350	7	6	43,	-@	.	33	>5;?9		_35	43-0	.		?+86	.	3K6	43,	-@	+*	*		.	?,	1	A			_350	7	6	K6,	-@	.	33	+@@7	61	1	,	86A	B		E	S					Q!	V#				=E	JF	?6[	.	33X	,	.		+1		+	1	.	7	5@@*	69	B	+-4G6/	6-4+-.		)6.	67	1	3-	=^	5>264	,	-9		+-4	.	?6[	=@7	+KK64B	)*	+,	-.	,	/	/		+-4	?+-4;5/	/	64	?,	>	K6?,	-4	?,	1		K+;XA			S					V#											,	1		=-3.		.	33	X,	-4	,	/		1	3>6K34[				#		`	'			'										 #						1	3	E	?6F		@3.		.	3	1	.	7	5@@*	,	-@	D,	.	?	.	?6>9		+-4	.	?6[	?+4	.	3	7	6>386	E	?,	>F		/	7	3>	.	?6	234A	B		E	S					a#							 												'																					'						Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 5 of 10

Jones grabbed Plaintiff's ankles and these Defendants carried Plaintiff out of the pod. [Id.].

From the pod, they walked out of a slider door and went inside the sally port, where
Defendants Simpson, Jones, and Peterson “just dropped [Plaintiff] to the ground on [his] face” and
“busted [his] lip.” [Id. at 10-11]. At this time, Defendant Peterson had been carrying “the brute
force of [Plaintiff's] weight.” [Id. at 11]. “They picked [Plaintiff] up off the ground,” and these
Defendants and the Plaintiff were talking and “started walking towards the elevator.” [Id. at 13-
14].

From the sally port to the elevator, Defendant Peterson was “getting on [Plaintiffs]
nerves,” making “slick comments,” “talking trash.” [Id. at 12-14]. Once they got on the elevator,
Plaintiff “was just thinking in [his] head about what Peterson was saying. It was just getting under
[Plaintiffs] skin.” [Id. at 13]. They rode the elevator one or two floors. [Id. at 15]. As the elevator
doors opened, Plaintiff spat on Defendant Peterson’s face. [Id. at 15-16]. After Plaintiff spat on
Defendant Peterson’s face, Defendant Jones threw Plaintiff to the ground and “maliciously started
attacking” the Plaintiff while he was handcuffed behind his back. [Id. at 16]. Defendant Jones
punched Plaintiff in the face a couple of times and then Plaintiff “balled up on the ground to try to
evade his punches.” Jones then punched Plaintiff in the body and in the back of the head, “just

punching [Plaintiff] continuously” for approximately 25 seconds.” [Id. at 16-19]. Eventually,

* Defendant Jones’ testimony materially differs from Plaintiffs version of events. Defendant Jones attests
that, while in the elevator, Plaintiff was informed that he was going to single cell confinement due to his
behavior in the pod. Plaintiff began to threaten Defendants Jones, Peterson, and Simpson. Plaintiff
threatened to kill Defendant Jones, saying ““You don’t know who I am.” [Doc. 22-4 at § 10]. Plaintiff
became more hostile and erratic on the elevator. When they reached the fourth floor and the elevator
opened, Plaintiff spat on Defendant Peterson’s face and the spit also hit Jones on the side of his face. To
avoid further assault by the Plaintiff, Defendant Jones took Plaintiff to the ground to gain compliance. [Id.
at J¥ 11-12]. Defendants Simpson, Peterson, and Jones ordered Plaintiff to turn over onto his back. Because
Plaintiff began to kick and continued to resist, Defendant Jones “struck him several times with a closed fist
to gain compliance.” [Id. at J 13]. Once Plaintiff was no longer resisting, he was brought to his feet and
escorted to medical. [Id.].

6

Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 6 of 10


	 																																!"		#$%		&'(!)*	'	+',	'-!-"		.	/-'*		0!*		"	1	23	-4	"	/	51	'!6	,	1	''	/,		+',	'-!-"		73	89*	/-:		+',	'-!-"		783	"	;:	0;/0!*	91	'*	'-"	0;'-"	;''<	'=!"	/1	//1	/9'-':	*	"	'99'5'"	0''-+',	'-!-"	.	/-'*	!-"	;'><	!3	-"	3	,	,	:		!-	9)*	;'	.	/-'*		,	)1	"	;'1		/0-	"	;'	;!<	<	0!2				%				?			@		?		AB			C			!"		#D%		E,	"	'1		"	;'	3	-(3	'-"	:		><	!3	-"	3	,	,		0!*		*	''-	52	8'3	(!<		F;'	-)1	*	'	1	'9/1	"	'	"	;!"					C	G			A		?				:		H		?				A								!"		IJ%	><	!3	-"	3	,	,		!<	*	/	;!	"	0/	5<	!(6	'2'*				%		><	!3	-"	3	,	,		0!*		43	='-	!-	3	('	9!(6	,	/1		*	0'<	<	3	-4:		5)"		;'1	'('3	='	-/	,	)1	"	;'1		8'3	(!<		"	1	'!"	8'-"		,	/1		;3	*		3	-K	)1	3	'*					!"		I#L	II%	><	!3	-"	3	,	,	:		;/0'='1	:		3		*	''	!8'-"	!<		;'!<	"	;	-)1	*	'	!,	"	'1		"	;'	,	!("			?									!"		II%	M	NO	 	PM	QRSQQM	TU	V								?		?				 	?	W	@	   W	B 	AX?		?	!5!-/-8'-"		/,		!	(<	!3	8 		Y*	"	!"	'	/,		Y4'1	"	/-	=	Z>		[/<	3	-4*	:			-(:		\/	]]&L	J^L	#DI_:		IJ##	`abDc$_bJ:		!"		de	f	+	g	+'(	ID:		IJ##h		f	(3	"	3	-4	g'-"	(;	=	Y!*	"	'1	-	7!=	&!-6:		i7&:		^e^	i7)99#Icb:		#IebL	jk	l			m		nookp	p					q?	A			?							?			 	?	W	@	 			q?									H			B	 		HW			?					8/"	3	/-,	/1	*	)88!1	2K	)48'-"	:	'='-!,	"	'1	"	;']/)1	"	41	!-"	><	!3	-"	3	,	,	!-'r"	'-*	3	/-"	//*	/	g/1	'/='1	:		"	;'	]/)1	"		'r91	'*	*	<	2	0!1	-'	><	!3	-"	3	,	,		"	;!"		;3	*				?	 	W	?					8/"	3	/-W	?			 							B	A ?	@	B				F;'	]/)1	"		-/"	'*		"	;!"		3	"		0/)<		41	!-"		*	)88!1	2	K	)48'-"		,	/1		+',	'-!-"		g(i!'-	3	-	!-2'='-"	:		5)"		-/"		,	/1		+',	'-!-"	*		.	/-'*	:		783	"	;:		73	89*	/-:		/1		>'"	'1	*	/-		F;'	i/)1	"	''-"	;	E8'-8'-"	?	B		?	?				?	 					sB	X		?	B	 		 			t1	!;!8=	]/--/1	:		e^J	Z7	cDb:		c^_	-#J	f	#^D^h		F/	*	"	!"	'	!-	'r('*	*	3	='	,	/1	('	(<	!3	8:		!	91	'"	1	3	!<		'"	!3	-''	A	W	?	B?		W?	uA 	W	 A	H@	BX	WCase 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 7 of 10

unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015). The standard for assessing a

pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim is “solely an objective one.” Id. In determining whether
the force was objectively unreasonable, a court considers the evidence “from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20

vision of hindsight.” Id. (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). Here, a reasonable juror may conclude

from the forecast of evidence that Defendant Jones’ conduct was unobjectively unreasonable and,
therefore, violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
A pretrial detainee’s failure to protect claim constitutes a due process claim under the

Fourteenth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383,

388-90 (4th Cir. 2001) (applying Farmer to a pretrial detainee’s failure to protect and medical
claims). A pretrial detainee states a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious risk of harm on the “purely objective basis that the ‘governmental action’ they challenge
is not ‘rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose’ or is ‘excessive in relation to that

purpose.’” Short v. Hartman, 87 F.4th 593, 611 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

576 U.S. 389, 398 (2015)). “Now, it is sufficient that the plaintiff show that the defendant’s action
or inaction was in Kingsley’s words, “objectively unreasonable,’ .... [T]hat is, the plaintiff must
show that the defendant should have known of that condition and that risk, and acted accordingly.”

Id. at 611 (internal citation omitted); see Hammock v. Andoh, No. 22-7159, 2024 WL 33694, at

*1 (4th Cir. Jan. 3, 2024) (In Short, the Fourth Circuit “held that a pretrial detainee’s failure-to-
protect claim must be evaluated under an entirely objective standard.”).

Based on this standard, a reasonable juror might conclude from the forecast of evidence in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiff that Defendants Smith, Peterson, and Simpson failed to

protect Plaintiff from harm in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is, the forecast of

8

Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 8 of 10


	 	 										 	  										 									!	"#$%&'	(													 												)					 			 			 *			+		 		,				- 							 		 		  ,					 						- 	 		-		.									*			+ )		/  		 	-		,	-				 *	0 		)		 -	 			1"2	"#!#3		4	$#"5	6					 		,		)		0 		*		7 	)		89	:*	; 	<8;)		*	;	=	; 	/		*		>8?	)		 				@ 			 						 	)		 )				 		 					-		.		 									  	   															 		*			A 		 				 	 								 					 	)	  			- 						  		 			 			 )	 )		  	. 		- 	  	 			 	 *			+ )		/ 			 				@									*			B""	CD	ED		"F	G	"H	D	ID	ED		JD		1$H	&$5	'		KKL	MD	N!	OPQ'		OPK	R	L3		ST	G	D		QUOKV	D			W 	/ )	 		)	 						-	 			0:			 		 					 				 		,																				 			 	-			 				-	 						*			
Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 9 of 10


			  																 					 			 				 !	"#$	#%	&$	#	'(' &#	")			*+	')			,	-			.						 											 			 	' )		)				!	"#	*&!	#$	*+	')			(/	0#%	#'!			1)	!	"	2#!	#$		&	3	&#	' 	1)	4	&5			6	7	8	9	7:	;	:	<=		;>979?679=		6789798	!	"'!		!	"#	 				@						A 		B	 	C	0&*5		DEF		)			G7HI;98J		!	"#	K&!	#$	*+	')			(/	0#%	# '!			2#!	#$		&	3	&#	1)	4	&	' 	1)	!	"C	0&*5		EEF		'$	#	8:	<L:	<<98J		' 	!	")			'*!	)	&	)			"#$	#(/	8:	<L:	<<98	MN	O	P	QRST	UVN	WS5	X"#	K+	#$	Y	)			)		!	$	*!	#	!	&	!	#$	)	'!	#	!	")			'*!	)	&5	:	;	:	<	<6	67897985	A	Z		[\ 	]^_		`a`b
Case 3:23-cv-00458-MOC Document 27 Filed 11/18/24 Page 10 of 10