Watkins v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION SARAH WATKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:21-cv-01344-SEP ) CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants. ) Before the Court is Defendant Frederick Thompson’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 15. Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion, and the time for doing so has passed. For the reasons set forth below, the MotionF AisC TgSr aAnNtDe dB.A CKGROUND Plaintiff Sarah Watkins brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of St. Louis and St. Louis International Airport Police officers Andrew Metcalf, Bryant Morris, Darryl Baker, Justin Colombo, Frederick Thompson, and Anthony Thompson, for the See violation of her rights protected by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 26-47. The Complaint sets forth two counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Count I against the individual officers, including Frederick Thompson; and Count II against the City of St. Louis. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on December 24, 2016, St. Louis Airport Police Officer Andrew Metcalf stopped her near the St. Louis International Airport for an alleged traffic violation, and that Metcalf and other Airport Police officers, including Frederick Id. Thompson, used excessive and unreasonable force when they pepper sprayed her and used their batons to obtain her compliance. ¶¶ 17-22. Notably, the Complaint alleges that Officers Anthony Thompson and Frederick Thompson are both assigned Department Serial Number (“DSN”) 14399. Doc. 1 at 2. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court must grant a motion for summary judgment if it finds, based on the factual record, that “there is no genuine issue as to any Celotex Corp. v. Catrett material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Material facts are those that “might affect the Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and there is a genuine dispute where “a rIn ec a. s onable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” ,477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to Celotex Corp. interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” , 477 U.S. at 323 (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden then shifts to the non-movant to “present Farver v. McCarthy Wingate v. Gage Cnty. specific evidence, beyond ‘mere denials or allegations [that] . . . raise a genuine issue for Sch. Dist., No. 34 trial.’” , 931 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir. 2019)(quoting , 528 F.3d 1074, 1079 (8th Cir. 2008)). “In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must be able to show sufficient probative Binkley v. Entergy Operations, Inc. evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, Godfrey v. Pulitzer Pub. Co. or fantasy.” , 602 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting DISCUSSION , 276 F.3d 405, 412 (8th Cir. 2002)). Frederick Thompson is, and was on December 24, 2016, a police officer employed by the St. Louis Airport Police Department. Doc. 18 (Amended Statement of Uncontroverted 1 Id. Material Facts) ¶ 1. Frederick Thompson is assigned DSN 14269 and has never been id. id assigned DSN 14399. ¶¶ 2-3. He was not on duty at the time of the incident alleged in the id. Complaint, ¶ 4; had no involvement in the incident, . ¶ 5; and has never had any Id. interaction with Plaintiff, ¶ 6. The incident report for the incident alleged in the Complaint does not include any mention of or reference to Frederick Thompson. ¶ 7. Frederick Thompson thus argues that Plaintiff has mistaken him for Anthony Thompson, and that he is not a proper party to this case. 1 Plaintiff did not file a response to ThompsonJo’sn Setsa vt.e Umneitnetd o Pf aUrncceol nSetrrovv., eInrtced Material Facts, and therefore a ll well-supported facts therein are deemed admitted for purposes of this motion. See Frederick Thompson filed this Motion on March 17, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the motion nor moved to voluntarily dismiss Mr. Thompson as a party from this case. Because the uncontroverted material facts demonstrate that Frederick Thompson was not involved in the incident that is the subject of this action, Frederick Thompson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Frederick Thompson’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 15, is GRANTED. A separate Order of Judgment shall be issued herewith. Dated this 28" day of September, 2022. _f) hick □□□ □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE