Sidney Williams VS Brian Harding, et al

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

S1ATE OF LC I ISI RT iL CC faF APPF AL llA l V A4A l Lr JJ SIDNE V MS ILLI TS RSI VF BRIAN HI RDING TDIVIDUr LLAND AS IN EMPLOYMENT VITH LOUISIAN STATE POLICE AI OUISIAN S POLICE I TATE t mer 7ad Reaadered APR 2 6 2 3 M On E frnr the l ppe a 1 yth 3udz IJisYric Court iQi In and f4r the Parish Q ast Baton Ro f age foni cI iana e ta Tria Cc Io 587524 rt i Honorabl2 VVil A lbiarvaz Jn Pre iaan t ge zding n Jos13 R Alex Breaux Bridge James D Attorre ior Plaintif ppzllant r LA Budc3 Caldwel Sidney Williams s Attorneti for Defenciants Appellees Attorney Genexal tate of Louisiana through t ie Darrell J Salta achia na Louzsi State Poli and e Special Asst Att General rney Baton Rouge Lr 7Cxooper Brian Harding BEFORE E PPI J ENDON W G McCL AND HIGGINBOT JJ IAM HIGGINBOTHAM J Plaintiff Sidney Williams appeals the grant of summary judgmznt in favor of defendants Brian Harding individually and in his capacity as a Louisiana State Trooper and the State of Louisiana through the Loaisiana State Police State Police Finding no error we affirm BACKGROUND Mr Williams filed suit against Trooper Harding individually and in his official capacity as a state trooper and the State Police alleging that Troope Harding used excessive force when he shot Mr Williams during a routine traffic stop from which Mr Williams attempted to flee Mr Williams also alleged that the State Police inadequately trained Trooper Harding Trooper Harding and the State Police answered the lawsuit denying all of Mr Williams alle g ations and s asserting that Trooper Harding acted lawfully and in self when he shot defense Mr Williams Trooper Harding and the State Police also specifically pled the defenses of discretionary and qualified immunity This case began with a traffic stop on the night of February 17 2009 in Houma Louisiana The encounter was recorded by Trooper Harding dash s cam video in his marked State Police unit While on duty and patrolling Trooper Harding stopped Mr Williams vehicle because he observed Mr Williams s driving in a careless erratic and suspicious manner which he thought was an indication that the driver could be Trooper Harding quickly ascertained impaired that Mr Williams was driving with an expired driver license and tag and he s immediately noticed that Mr Williams smelled of alcohol and marijuana Although Mr Willaams appeared nervous as he attempted to explain his situation he answered Trooper Harding questions and he cooperated by producing an s open half bottle of bear that he had been drinking while driving empty 2 However Mr Williams refused to give Trooper Harding what appeared to be a marijuana butt that he was holding in his hand While Trooper Harding was reqaesting thaY the marijuana be handed over Mr Williams suddenly fled into a dark vacant field located adjacent to the parking lot area u the traffic stop occurred Once Mr Williams began here running the encounter was no longer within the range of the dash video cam camera lens mounted on Trooper Harding vehicle however some aspects ofthe s foot pursuit were audio As Trooper Harding chased Mr Williams he recorded verbally commanded Mr Williams to stop before he deployed his police issued taser which slowed but did not stop Mr Williams Trooper Harding eventually tackled Mr Williams in an attempt to get control of him nevertheless Mr Williams fought and continued to resist During their confrontation Trooper Harding inadvertently dropped his taser on the ground Mr Williams picked it up and immediately used it in a stun maneuver by placing it directly on drive Trooper Harding sneck The taser shot incapacitated Trooper Harding making it difficult for him to breathe He temporarily lost all feeling and muscle control from the waist up became very dizzy and was on the verge of passing out Mr Williams did not leave the scene while Trooper Harding was debilitated instead Trooper Harding felt Mr Williams on top of him attempting to pull his service revolver out of its holster In fear of losing his life Trooper Harding rolled on his side in an effort to protect his firearm while simultaneously kicking Tr Williams off of him Convinced that Mr Williams was trying to take his revolver to shoot him Trooper Harding managed to hold Mr Williams off of him with lus leg while he pulled his revolver and fired one shot into Mr Williams left flank s abdomen Although Mr Williams fell after being shot he persisted in his resistance as 3 Trooper Harding handcuffed him Afrer backup arrived Trooper Harding and Mr Williams were both transported to a hospital for treatment Mr Williams was eventually convicted an sentenced for seven felonies d including aggravated battery atternpt to disarm a patice officer and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and other iliegal narcotic painkillers in connection with the confrontation with Trooper Hardir The validity of Mr g s Williams convictions has not been overturned or modified on appeal expunged or called into question in any way Additionally Trooper Harding was cleared by the State Police of any wrong doing arising out of the incident including the discharge of his firearm while in the line of duty Even so Mr Williams filed this lawsuit for damages the same month he was convicted claiming that his constitutional rights were violated because he was the victim of excessive and unreasonable force at the hands of Trooper Harding Mr Williams alleged that Trooper Harding was inadequately trained for this type of situation that only escalated when Trooper Harding pursued him into the vacant field Trooper Harding and the State Police answered the lawsuit generally denying all of Mr s Williams allegations and raising the affirmative defenses of self defense discretionary qualified immunity and estoppel from a collateral attack on the underlying facts of the final judgments of conviction that gave rise to Mr s Williams claims Trooper Harding individually and in his capacity as a state trooper along with the State Police filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability maintaining that Trooper Harding use of force was reasonable and s justifiable as it was done in self that Mr Williams was legally barred defense from collaterally attacking his convictions and further asserting the defense of discretionary qualified immunity After a hearing where counsel for Mr Williarrzs waived his appearance and forfeited his right to aral argument the or 4 trial court granted the motion for s judgment and dismissed 1 mmary 1r spetitiorc with preJudic ir i91ia pp argaazng that the trial Williams d ai court erred in granting the summary judgmezit irz favor of Troop Harding and r the State Poiice RI II STA OF I2 IEW Appellate cU reviev sutnm ji de novo using the same rts r dgzr ent criteria that govern the trial co determination of whether sum aryJudgmeni a is appropriate i whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and e whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law 2607 Redfern 2008 La 5 12 So 945 949e 3d 09 22 Cutsinger v Judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on fle together with the affidavits if any show that there is no genuine issue of material fact an the mover is entitled to judgrrzent as a matter c law La Code d f Civ P art 966 Bj The initial burden of roof xer2 with the movant ains movant will t n bear Yh burden vi roob at raal Hawever if the ed not neg all essential r t elements of the ad arty c1 lbut rae mu erse s aa tpoint oat tta tthere is an absence of factua support for ot a more eiemenxs essential o the claim If tk er e adverse pazly fails to produce factual suppo f establish tha2 he will be rts to icient able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at triai there is r genuine issue of v material fact and the mover zs entitled to surr judgm lhe adverse party mary nt may not rest on the mere alIegations or denials tfiis leading His response by affidavits c otherw pmvided by law must set forth specific fracta show tihat r se ng there is a genuine issne for rrrial See La Code Giv art 966 La Code 2 C Civ P art 467 Robles v Ex 2002 I App l ir 1B Iobile ion 0854 a t 03 3128 44 Soe2d 339 34L 5 DISCIJSSION Mr V iawsuit alleges er c for damages under 42 U s illiams al aints C S 1983 and state ia for ersonal injury arising ou of a Fo Amendment v t urtr excessive forc clair against Trooper Aard ana the State Folice Trooper ng Hardin ant the Stata Pt i4vud fvr sumrr judgmen o tr gr that lice aay unds Heck ve Humphrey 51 U 47 lI4 S 364 129 L 383 1994 Se Gt 2d Ed barred Mr Williams claims and that Trooper Harding and the State Police are s entitled to qualified immunzty pursuant to La R 9 discretionary S 2798 1 In Heck 512 U at 486 114 S at 2372 the Supreme Court held S 87 Ct that a plaintiff who has been co of a cannot bring a 1983 claim victed ne ri challenging the constitutionality c his con unless that conviction has been f iction reversed expunged declared invalid or called into question by fhabeas ederal corpus Heck bars claims for harm caused by actions whose unlawfalness would render a con or sentence invalid Id Thus unless the conviction has been iction overturned a plainYiff cann bring a 1983 claim if prevailirag on that r t laim would imply that his conviction was invalid Arnotd Town of Slaughter 100 Appx Fed 321 323 Sth Cix 2004 cert denied 543 U 966 125 S 429 S Ct 160 I i 2 Ed 36 ZO A Louisia 41 acenvictien fc aggrav battery of a r ted poiice officer is a convictzo th prevents a pl fi bringing asn excessive t inrff oxn force claim in connection wiYh the incident because a finding thati the offieer u sed excessive force would necessarily mean t1 the pla was somehow justified at ntiff in the battery which ivould undercnxne the cunviction See Id See also Hudson v Hughes 98 F3d 868 873 Sth Cir 1996 Despite the jury criminal convictions oP Mr Williams far aggravated s battery and attempt to disarm a police fficer Mr Williams civzl fawsuit s contends that he as not engaged in ara aggressive behavior tTrooper y wards Harding that he was unarmed and was not attempting to gain cc over ntrol 6 Trooper Harding firearm anci that Trooper Harding use of deadly force was s s unreasonably excessive Thus 1r Wil lawsuit squarely challenges the s iams s jury factual determinations in his trial that underlies his convictions for criminal aggravated battery and attempt to disarnn a police officer If Mr Williams were to prevail he will have established that his crirninal eonvictions lack any basis Jurisprudence clearly holds that civil suits are not allowed to collaterally attack previous criminal convictions Therefore since this lawsuit challenges the validiry of Mr Williams convicrions it is the type of excessive farce claim that s is baned by Heck and its progeny See Arnold 100 Fed at 324 Appx 325 Hudson 98 F at 872 Furthermore since Mr Williams did not introduce 3d 873 any evidence to support or prove that his convictions or sentences have been reversed on direct appeal expunged by executive order or declared invalid by any tribunal authorized to make such a determination the trial court correctly dismissed Mr Williams claims We find that Trooper Harding and the State s Police were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claims Our review of Louisiana case law reveals that the Heck rationale is equally applicable to Mr Williams sstate law claims for excessive force that necessarily attack the validity of his underlying convictions Thus due to the Hecl bar to this civil action there is no underlying tortious act on the part of Trooper Harding because as a matter of law due to his conviction for aggravated battery upon Trooper Harding Mr Wiiliams cannot show thaf Trooper Harding used See Boudreaux v State Dept of Public Safety 479 So 416 417 La App lst Cir 2d 1985 Duke v State Dept of Public Safety 424 So 1262 1264 La 4pp 3d Cir 1982 2d and Roberson v Town of Pollock 2005 La App 3d Cir 11 915 Sa2d 426 433 332 OS 9 434 in dissent writ denied 2006 La 4 926 So 550 See also Sheppard v 0213 06 24 2d City of Alexandria 2012 WL 3961820 p 2 La following D 10 W 9 unpublished 12 Heck by not allowing state law claizns to withstand summary judgment if the claims challenge the validity of the underlying criminal conviction Bates v MeKenna 2012 WL 3309381 p D W 7 La 8 citing the Heck baz to a state law vicarious liabilizy claim unpublished 12 13 for unlaw arrest and excessive force as well as the plaintiff s claims against the arresting ful officer Anderson v City of Minden 2009 WL 1374122 pp 5 W La 6 D unpublished 09 15 5 applying the Heck standard ta state law civil actions and precluding such acuon if it would invalidate a criminal convicrion 7 re excessi force Lilcewise th reasoning of Heck precludzs 1 Williams e 4r s ability to prove vicarious liability on the part of the State Police for excessive force Furthermore Mr Williarris failed to produce any factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisiy his evidentiary burden of proof regardirig inadequate pc ur trairing c the part of the State Police licies n Mr Williams may not rest on the mere allegations of his pleadings La Code Civ P art 966 Thus there is no genuine issue of material fact and all of 2 C Mr Williams state Iaw claims were properly dismissed by summary judgment s See Penn v St Tammany Parish 5heriffls Office 2002 La App lst Cir 0893 03 2 4 843 So 1157 1160 Because of our holding we pretermit 2d 1161 discussion ofthe affrrmative defenses of qualified immunity discretionary CONCLti SION Far the outlined reasons we affirm the summary judgment granted in favor of defendants Bri Harding individually and in his official capacity appellees n as a Louisiana State Trooper and the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana State Police dismisszng all of VIr VVilliams claims All costs of this appeal are to be paid by plaintiffappellant Sidney Williams AFFIRMED See Restrepo v Fortunato 556 So 1362 1363 La App Sth Cir writ denied SEO So 2d 2d La ll1990 holding that if a plaintiff is convicted of a crime for which he was arrested and indicted then he has no c of action fot false imprisonment as a matter of iaw and Rabalais use v Blanche 524 So 772 77s La App 3d Cir 198t3 holding that an action for malicious 2d prosecution could not be maintained when the plaintiff was convicted far an offense for which she wa arrested See also O v Town of Glenmora 2008 La App 3d C Brien 309 ir 08 5 11 997 So 753 756 holding that a plainriff claims against the arresting officer and 2d s town were precluded by his convictiori of the crime for which he was arrested 3 We distinguish Penn 843 Sa2d at 1159 in par from the facts of this case because in Penn the plaintiff excesszve farce claim was independent of his conviction for battery committed s upon the poliqe officer In the case sub judice Mr i s iIliams excessive foice claim is inextricably rela4ed to the viability of his underlying conviction for aggravated battery 8

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.