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, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Officer K.P. Anderson (“Officer Anderson”). See Record Document 16. Officer Anderson moved for summary judgment in his favor on the grounds that all claims asserted against him in his individual capacity are barred by Heck v. Humphrey.[1] Plaintiff Michael Tickner (“Tickner”) has opposed the motion. See Record Document 28. For the reasons set forth below, Officer Anderson's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and all of Tickner's claims against Officer Anderson in his individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. BACKGROUND.

         The incident forming the basis of this lawsuit occurred on September 7, 2013 at the El Dorado Casino/Hotel in Shreveport, Louisiana. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 1; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 1. Tickner and his girlfriend, Jessica Renaud (“Renaud”), were guests/patrons at the El Dorado Casino/Hotel. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 2; Record Document 28-4 at ¶A 2. A dispute arose between Tickner and the El Dorado Casino personnel. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 3; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 3. Tickner and Renaud were asked to vacate the El Dorado property. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 4; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 4. Three officers with the Shreveport Police Department, including Officer Anderson, were asked to assist El Dorado personnel in removing Tickner and Renaud from the property. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 5; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 5. Officer Anderson, the other two officers, at least one El Dorado employee, Tickner, and Renaud proceeded through the El Dorado Casino, up an elevator, and down a hallway to Tickner's hotel room.

         While contested by Tickner, Officer Anderson alleges that he was elbowed by Tickner when he was entering Tickner's hotel room. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 6; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 6. According to Officer Anderson, this resulted in him pushing/shoving Tickner forward. See id. Officer Anderson then recalls Tickner falling to the floor. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 7; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 7. According to Officer Anderson, he struck Tickner approximately twice in the shoulder blade area and then Tickner was handcuffed and placed under arrest for battery of an officer. See Id. Tickner alleges that Officer Anderson repeatedly struck him and violently attacked him. See Record Document 28-4 at B¶¶ 4-6. Tickner maintains that Officer Anderson's actions were without notice, provocation, or justification. See id. at B¶ 8.

         Prior to being taken to the Shreveport Police Department jail, Tickner stated that he had consumed approximately six Jack Daniels and Coke and had taken prescription pain medication. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 8; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 8. Tickner plead guilty to an amended charge of resisting an officer in Shreveport City Court on February 21, 2014. See Record Document 16-1 at ¶ 9; Record Document 28-4 at A¶ 9.

         Ticker filed the instant lawsuit on September 8, 2014. He alleges violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in this civil rights action. He also alleges parallel violations of state law. As to the individual capacity claims against Officer Anderson, Ticker maintains that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, unjust and unreasonable seizure and detention, and excessive use of force. See Record Document 1 at ¶ 32. In the instant motion, Officer Anderson seeks dismissal of all Section 1983 claims and state law claims against him in his individual capacity. See Record Document 16.

         In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Officer Anderson addressed Tickner's false arrest claim, excess force claim, and pendant state law claims. See Record Document 16. In opposing Officer Anderson's motion, Tickner defended only the excessive force and related state law claims. See Record Document 28. Thus, the Court deems Tickner's Section 1983 false arrest claim and any pendant state law claim relating to false arrest abandoned. See Black v. Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 588 n. 1 (5th Cir.2006) (plaintiff abandoned retaliatory abandonment claim when she failed to defend claim in response to motion to dismiss); Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659, 678-679 (5th Cir.2001) (limitations defense not raised in response to motion for summary judgment or supplemental answer was abandoned); Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154, 1164 (5th Cir.1983) (party “in his opposition to a motion for summary judgment cannot abandon an issue and then . . . by drawing on the pleadings resurrect the abandoned issue” and in response to motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to address two theories pleaded in complaint or mention “a single fact that would trigger a genuine issue on these theories”).

         II. LAW AND ANALYSIS.

         A. Summary Judgment Standard.

         Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 628 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir.2010). “Rule 56[(a)] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311, 315 (5th Cir.2004).

         “A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). If the moving party fails to meet this initial burden, the motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response. See Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir.1995).

         If the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, “the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for trial.” Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 141 (5th Cir.2004). Where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, then summary judgment should be granted. See Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir.2005). Where the parties dispute the facts, the Court must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007). In sum, the motion for summary judgment “should be granted ...


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.