Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. Casino

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

January 21, 2015

STACEY CARTER
v.
ELDORADO CASINO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK L. HORNSBY, Magistrate Judge.

Introduction

Stacey Carter ("Plaintiff"), who is self-represented, alleged in his original and amended complaints (Docs. 1 and 10) that he was subjected to excessive force and false arrest by off-duty Shreveport police officers who were working a security detail at the Eldorado Casino. Plaintiff admits that he and his fiancee were arguing in the lobby of the casino at 1:30 a.m. when Shreveport police Office K. P. Anderson and other officers approached them and asked for identification. Plaintiff alleges that Anderson told Plaintiff that Anderson had been the lead detective on the investigation of a 2001 incident where Plaintiff was shot, and Plaintiff and his wife had not cooperated with Anderson in the investigation. Plaintiff alleges that Anderson then said, "You are going to jail, " and slammed Plaintiff to the floor, injuring Plaintiff's face. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to a charge of disturbing the peace, and the prosecutor dismissed a charge of resisting arrest.

Plaintiff complains about the actions of Anderson, alleges that Police Chief Willie Shaw failed to properly supervise his officers, that Officer P. W. Robinson and other officers who were nearby failed to prevent the use of excessive force, and that Eldorado Casino is liable for employing the officers and failing to properly supervise them. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 74), after which motions for summary judgment were also filed by Eldorado Casino (Doc. 95) and the City of Shreveport, Chief Willie Shaw, Officer K.P. Anderson and Officer Paul Robinson (Doc. 97). For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion be denied and that the defendants' motions be granted.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate "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. Pro. 56(a). A fact is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if there is sufficient evidence so that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for either party. Anderson, supra; Hamilton v. Segue Software Inc., 232 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2000).

The party seeking summary judgment has the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those parts of the record that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986). If the moving party carries his initial burden, the burden then falls upon the nonmoving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of a material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56 (1986).

Summary Judgment Evidence

A. Officer Paul Robinson's Affidavit

Paul Robinson testifies by affidavit that he was performing off-duty employment at the casino, wearing his Shreveport police uniform, at the time of the incident. Robinson and the assistant manager of the casino were coming down the escalator from the second floor to the first when Robinson saw a beverage glass fly across the first floor. He then saw Sgt. Kevin (K. P.) Anderson, who was also working off-duty at the casino, standing between a couple. Anderson told Robinson that he saw the male, Plaintiff, commit a battery on the female, Latrinia Shelton. Anderson asked Robinson to detain Plaintiff while he interviewed Ms. Shelton about the battery.

Robinson testifies that he noted a strong odor of alcohol coming from Plaintiff, who became argumentative and belligerent after giving Robinson his identification. Plaintiff asked Robinson to arrest him and take him to jail, but Robinson said he was just detaining Plaintiff at that point. Plaintiff then made a fist and said in a loud voice, "I'll give you a reason to arrest me." Plaintiff then said, "fuck it, " and began to walk away from Robinson. Robinson then told Plaintiff that he was under arrest and attempted to grab Plaintiff's arm to make the arrest. Plaintiff jerked his arm away. Robinson then used a modified seatbelt takedown to establish control over Plaintiff and bring him to the ground, where he was handcuffed.

Robinson testifies that he then helped the handcuffed Plaintiff to his feet, but Plaintiff began to try to walk away and fell to the ground. Robinson testifies that he, with the aid of an off-duty state trooper, helped Plaintiff stand up, and they escorted Plaintiff to the security room where Plaintiff was advised of his Miranda rights.

Robinson testifies that Plaintiff complained that his hip was "messed up." When Robinson asked why, Plaintiff said that he had been shot in a 2001 incident. As Plaintiff described the details of the shooting, Robinson remembered it and told Plaintiff that he had been involved in the investigation. Plaintiff then complained that Robinson was mad at him because Plaintiff did not cooperate during the 2001 investigation. Robinson denied that, especially since the shooter had killed himself at the scene. Robinson states that he had arrested Plaintiff for resisting an officer and disturbing the peace before he even realized the two men had been involved in the 2001 incident.

Plaintiff stated during the interview that he had been drinking most of the day, and he complained that his leg was bothering him. The officers requested EMS to examine Plaintiff, but Plaintiff refused any treatment. Robinson does not recall Plaintiff complaining about his face hurting. Robinson released ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.