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.

Tickner v. City of Shreveport

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

February 15, 2017

MICHAEL TICKNER
v.
CITY OF SHREVEPORT, ET AL.

          HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          S. MAURICE HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is an unopposed “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Behalf of The City of Shreveport, Chief Willie Shaw, and K.P. Anderson, in Their Official Capacities.” See Record Document 19. These Defendants (sometimes referred to as “the City Defendants”) seek dismissal of all of Plaintiff Michael Tickner's (“Tickner”) Section 1983 claims and punitive damages claims against them in their official capacities. For the reasons set forth below, the City Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Section 1983 claims against the City and the Section 1983 official capacity claims against Chief Shaw and Officer Anderson are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Tickner's punitive damages claim under federal and state law against the City Defendants are likewise DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. BACKGROUND.

         Tickner alleges violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in this civil rights action. He also alleges parallel violations of state law. Ticker maintains that he was subjected to the use of excessive force by officers of the Shreveport Police Department and has sued the City of Shreveport (“the City”), Chief Willie Shaw (“Chief Shaw”), in his individual and official capacity, and K.P. Anderson (“Officer Anderson”), in his individual and official capacity. See Record Document 1 at ¶¶ 9-11. The individual capacity claims against Chief Shaw were dismissed on August 25, 2015. See Record Document 13. In the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the City Defendants seek dismissal of Tickner's Section 1983 claims and punitive damages claims against the City and Chief Shaw and Officer Anderson in their official capacities. See Record Document 19.

         The City Defendants assert that it is not the policy or practice of the Shreveport Police Department to use excessive, unnecessary, or unreasonable force. See Record Document 19-3 at ¶ 2 (Concise Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Issue to be Tried on Behalf of the City Defendants). According to the City Defendants, officers of the Shreveport Police Department are trained in the proper use of force, and are instructed to only use the amount of force that the officers believe is necessary under the circumstances. See id. at ¶ 3. In support of their motion, the City Defendants have submitted the affidavit of Sgt. Rodney Horton (“Sgt. Horton”), a member of the Shreveport Police Department and an instructor at the Shreveport Police Academy. See Record Document 19-2. Sgt. Horton stated:

All officers are also instructed at the Police Academy and during yearly updates regarding the use of force, and are instructed not to use unnecessary force in the performance of their duties.
The use of excessive force is not tolerated, and allegations of excessive force are investigated and discipline issued where warranted.
It is not the policy of the Shreveport Police Department to arrest without probable cause.
Officers of the Shreveport Police Department are trained regarding probable cause, and are instructed to arrest only when probable cause exists.
Officers are also taught regarding detentions and that reasonable suspicion in necessary to detain a suspect.

Id.; see also Record Document 19-3 at ¶¶ 4-8.

         The City Defendants filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on November 4, 2015. See Record Document 19. A Notice of Motion Setting was issued by the Clerk of Court on November 5, 2015, stating:

Any party who opposes the motion may file a memorandum in opposition within fourteen (14) calendar days from the ...

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.