Smith et al v. Roundtree et al, No. 2:2015cv00004 - Document 59 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting Officer Archie Davis' 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Officer Nick Roundtree's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 11/18/2016. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith et al v. Roundtree et al Doc. 59 ifn tUmteDi States! Bisstrict Court for tfie ^outl^em IBtsttrirt of <(^eorgta PmnfiCtaitck Btlitfifiott RUSSELL V. SMITH and LYNETTE SMITH, Plaintiffs, CV 215-04 V. NICK ROUNDTREE; ARCHIE DAVIS; ANTHONY BROWN; and THE CITY OF DARIEN, Defendants. ORDER Plaintiffs Russell and Lynette Smith (^'the Smiths") bring suit against Defendants for an alleged illegal seizure of their property pursuant to a court order. Pending before the Court are Defendant Officer Nick Roundtree's Summary (^'Davis") Judgment and {Dkt. Officer No. 44) Anthony {^^Roundtree") Motion for and Officer Archie Davis Brown's (^^Brown") Motion for below, Roundtree's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37). For the reasons set forth Summary Judgment is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 44). Further, Brown and Davis' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 37). D72A ev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com FACTUAL BACKGROUND On Darien, April 8, Georgia 2013, Defendant residence. Brown Brown came arrived to in the Smiths' response to a complaint by the mother of one of the Smiths' grandchildren, Debra Newman (''Newman"), that the Smiths were preventing from obtaining her private property from their shed. 47 p. 1. her Dkt. No. Brown repeatedly told the Smiths that they would have to let Newman retrieve her things. Smiths refused court order. and told Brown that at 2. Dkt. No. 47 pp. 1-3. he would The need a warrant or Later that day, Roundtree arrived and informed the Smiths that if Newman had property in the shed, they would need to let her retrieve it. Again the Smiths said that they would only obey a warrant or court order. Roundtree spoke with Davis on the phone Id. shortly after. Roundtree indicated that he would obtain a court order and that he had spoken to the magistrate judge regarding the issue. 44-5 pp. 7-8. Through some confusion, Davis came to believe that Roundtree had already obtained the court order. Dkt. No. 47-2 p. 1. court order. Dkt. at 8; Roundtree, however, had not obtained a Dkt. 42 p. 30. Davis repeatedly told the Smiths that they needed to comply based on his incorrect assumption that there was a court order. Dkt. No. 47 pp. 4-5. Believing they were legally compelled to do so, the Smiths allowed Newman to collect various boxes from the shed. Id. The Smiths later discovered that no court order had been issued. The Smiths have since moved to South Carolina and are unsure if Newman actually took any of their possessions that day. Dkt. No. 44-6 at 45:5- 7. On January 6, 2015, The Smiths brought a Section 1983 action against Defendants alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1. Roundtree, Davis, and Brown have now moved for summary judgment on those claims. LEGAL STANDARD The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact. material Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To satisfy this burden, the movant must show the court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325. If the moving party discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of fact does exist. 257 (1986). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, The nonmovant may satisfy this burden in two ways: First, the nonmovant ^^may show that the record in fact contains supporting evidence, sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion, which was ^overlooked or ignored' by the moving party, who has thus failed to meet the initial burden of showing an absence of evidence." Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 332 (Brennan, J., dissenting)). forward with directed additional verdict evidentiary Second, the nonmovant ^'may come evidence motion deficiency." at sufficient trial at based 1117. to withstand on the Where the a alleged nonmovant instead attempts to carry this burden with nothing more ^^than a repetition of his conclusional allegations, summary judgment for the defendants [is] not only proper but required." Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1981). DISCUSSION I. FEDERAL CLAIMS A. Standing Defendants first contest Plaintiffs' standing. sole basis for standing is that a seizure of occurred under the Fourth Amendment. The Smiths their property A ''seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." Porter v. Jewell, 453 F. App'x. 934, 936-937 (11th Cir. (citation 2012) Fourth Amendment and rights internal cannot quotation be marks asserted omitted). vicariously. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 173 (1969). The Smiths have not created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Newman took their property. Specifically, Lynette Smith testified that the boxes that were taken only contained some of her adult children's clothes. No. 44-4 at 48:20-25; 49:1-9. Russell Smith's similarly fails to establish an issue of fact. Dkt. testimony When asked if any of his things were taken, he replied, ^'I'm not sure," and, cannot swear [Newman] took them." Dkt. No. 44-6 at 44:15-20. Furthermore, the items in questions were ^'router bits and stuff and small items. . . [s]mall tools." the Smiths Russell have Smith since moved admitted the from items at 44:22-24. their ^'may home still in be Finally, Darien in the somewheres [sic] because there's still stuff in the shed." and shed Id. at 45:5-7. Unsupported speculation is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact needed to survive summary judgment. Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Here, the Smiths are unsure if Newman actually took anything that belonged to them and have admittedly not searched thoroughly enough in their shed to testify to that fact. If standing, Plaintiffs the Court themselves cannot are not possibly sure deny that summary they have judgment. Instead, the Smiths merely provide unsupported speculation that Newman took the items when in fact the Smiths are unsure what happened to them. Dkt. No. 44-6 44:15-20; 45:5-7. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants' motions for summary judgment.^ B. Qualified Immunity Even if the Smiths could establish a genuine issue of fact regarding standing, which they have not, their lack of clarity as to whether their items were actually taken is still fatal to their claim. Specifically, the Smiths cannot clearly establish they had a Fourth Amendment right in the property, and so all Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity if the Smiths can establish that: (1) the officers violated constitutional rights; and (2) a Fourth Amendment right was clearly Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) established. Pearson v. Qualified immunity exists to offer "complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct Moes not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). protects "all but the When properly applied, the doctrine plainly incompetent or one who is ^ The Smiths have not alleged that a bailment exists here. Such a theory requires the bailee to have complete control over the property. Bohannon v. State, 251 Ga. App. 771, 772 (2001). Here, the Smiths had no such control. Dkt. No. 44-4 at 45:7-12. ^ Federal courts have discretion in deciding which prong to address first. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. knowingly violating the federal law." Id. (quoting Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002)). As an initial matter, a public official must prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority at the time the alleged wrongful acts occurred. 668 F.3d 1244, 1250 (11th Cir. 2012). that all Defendants discretionary were at authority. all The Terrell v. Smith, Here, there is no dispute times acting burden then within shifts to plaintiff to show that qualified immunity does not apply. Here, the Smiths allege a Fourth Amendment their the Id. violation against all parties in that Davis allowed Newman to enter the Smiths' shed and obtain her things. As already discussed, however, the Smiths only had a Fourth Amendment right in their own things. 8, 2013 The Smiths' right in the possessions taken on April must immunity. be ^'clearly established" - to Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. overcome qualified Here, the Smith's right in the possessions is anything but clear. The Smiths themselves cannot state whether or not Newman took the items, whether they are still in the shed, or if the various small items were simply lost. Dkt. No. 44-4 at 48:20-25; 49:1-9. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, all C. Plaintiff Cannot Amend their Complaint Response to Summary Judgment For the first time, the Smiths now seek to add due process and trespass claims under Georgia law. Dkt. No. 47 p. 6. The Smiths cannot amend their Complaint in their response to summary- judgment. {11th Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 Cir. 2004) (^^Liberal pleading does not require that, at the summary judgment stage, defendants must infer all possible claims that could complaint."). arise out of facts set forth in the The Smiths did not previously seek leave to amend their Complaint to add these claims and a response to summary judgment is an improper vehicle to do so. Therefore, the Court declines to address new claims not previously alleged in the Smiths' Complaint. CONCLUSION For the Roundtree's reasons Motion for stated above. Summary Defendant Judgment (Dkt. Officer No. 44) Nick and Defendants Officer Anthony Brown and Archie Davis' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 37) are hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and to close this case. so ORDERED, this 18th day of November, 2016. LISA.GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA D72A .ev. 8/82)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
