United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JA'MILLE C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, et al., Defendants.
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court.
cause is before the Court on Defendant City of
Indianapolis' (“the City”) Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 83) and Defendant Anthony Bath's
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 98). The motions are
fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised,
GRANTS the City's motion and
DENIES Officer Bath's motion for the
reasons set forth below.
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment
is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In ruling on
a motion for summary judgment, the admissible evidence
presented by the non-moving party must be believed, and all
reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant's
favor. Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“We view the record in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor.”). However, a
party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may
not rest on its pleadings, but must show what evidence it has
that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires
trial. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d
892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). Finally, the non-moving party bears
the burden of specifically identifying the relevant evidence
of record, and “the court is not required to scour the
record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary
judgment.” Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d
713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001).
SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
properly supported facts of record, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff, Ja'mille C. Taylor, are as
follow. On July 23, 2014, at approximately 10:45
p.m., Ms. Taylor, an African-American female, arrived at The
Woods of Eagle Creek (“the Woods”), an apartment
community. Ms. Taylor, who previously had lived in the
apartment complex, was going to visit with a friend, Hudson
Bowers III, an African-American male who still lived at the
Taylor was sitting in her vehicle in a parking area outside
of Mr. Bowers' residence talking with Mr. Bowers when
Anthony Bath, who was dressed in a t-shirt and boxer shorts,
rushed at Ms. Taylor's vehicle, shouting, “You
dope-dealing motherfuckers woke up my . . . baby with your
loud music!” Dkt No. 84-1 at 6. Officer Bath was not in
a police uniform and did not have any police identification.
In fact, neither Ms. Taylor nor Mr. Bowers was dealing drugs
or playing loud using; they were not engaged in any unlawful
Bath was armed with his personally owned Mossberg 590
shotgun, which he pointed at both Ms. Taylor and Mr. Bowers
during the confrontation. After Officer Bath forced Mr.
Bowers to lie on his back on the ground, Officer Bath stuck
the barrel of his shotgun into Mr. Bowers' chest. Ms.
Taylor then told Officer Bath that she was calling the
police. Officer Bath pointed to a parked police vehicle
nearby and told Ms. Taylor, “I am the police.”
Dkt. No. 84-1 at 6. Ms. Taylor explained to Officer Bath that
because he was not in uniform, did not have a badge on, and
had not identified himself as a police officer, she would
still call the police. Ms. Taylor called 911 and reported
that there was a man “with a gun to my friend's
chest . . . claiming he's the police, ” and she
requested police assistance. Dkt. No. 84-1 at 6.
Bath then instructed Ms. Taylor to leave, and Ms. Taylor
started to walk away. She tried to use her phone to take
video footage but was unable to do so. Officer Bath karate
chopped her hand, making her drop her phone, grabbed the
braids in her hair, and “snatched back” her neck.
Dkt. No. 84-1 at 6. Officer Bath threw Ms. Taylor to the
ground face first, knocking the wind out of her. He jumped
onto her and sat on her lower back, placing his full body
weight on her. Officer Bath then pulled Ms. Taylor's arms
as far as he could behind her back and held her arms there.
Bath then yelled for his wife, who was outside and present at
the time of the incident, to get his handcuffs from inside
their residence. Officer Bath remained on top of Ms. Taylor,
still tugging on her arms to hold them behind her back, until
Officer Bath's wife returned with his handcuffs. Officer
Bath continued pulling on Ms. Taylor's arms to tightly
place handcuffs on both of Ms. Taylor's wrists. Officer
Bath left Ms. Taylor lying face down on the ground in the
dirt for another five to ten minutes until other Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) officers
arrived on the scene. Ms. Taylor was restrained in handcuffs
for another thirty to forty minutes before the other IMPD
officers removed them.
other police officers arrived at the scene, Ms. Taylor gave
them permission to search her car. No illegal drugs,
firearms, or other contraband were found in Ms. Taylor's
vehicle or nearby. Ms. Taylor was then released. Officer Bath
was ordered by the supervising IMPD officer at the scene to
apologize to Ms. Taylor. Neither Ms. Taylor nor Mr. Bowers
was charged with any crime or ordinance violation of any kind
as a result of the confrontation with Officer Bath. As a
result of the Citizens Police Complaints that Ms. Taylor and
Mr. Bowers filed with the City of Indianapolis Citizens
Police Complaint Office and the IMPD investigation that
followed, then IMPD Chief of Police Richard Hite found that
Officer Bath had violated several IMPD policies.
Specifically, Officer Bath was disciplined for conduct
unbecoming an officer for using demeaning and affronting
gestures towards Ms. Taylor and Mr. Bowers; failing to have
his law enforcement identification when taking a police
action; causing a negative response from a citizen who
challenged his authority and called 911; improperly involving
a citizen in a police action; failing to control his weapon;
and failing to obtain a valid work permit, putting his
courtesy officer status in question.
Taylor has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of her rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and
the laws and Constitution of the State of Indiana.
claims that remain at issue in Ms. Taylor's complaint are
against Officer Anthony Bath and the City. Ms. Taylor alleges
that (1) Officer Bath unreasonably seized her; (2) Officer
Bath used excessive force against her; and (3) these
violations were caused by policies, practices, or customs
developed, implemented, ...