United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER DISCUSSING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE.
Chris Riddle brought this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against the City of Columbus and several Columbus police
officers for an alleged unconstitutional blood draw after his
arrest on July 10, 2017. The defendants move for summary
judgment and Mr. Riddle has not responded.
Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a
trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). Whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or
genuinely disputed, the party must support the asserted fact
by citing to particular parts of the record, including
depositions, documents, or affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P.
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only
consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A
disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law. Williams v.
Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 941-42 (7th Cir. 2016). “A
genuine dispute as to any material fact exists ‘if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Daugherty v.
Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence
it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its
version of the events. Gekas v. Vasilades, 814 F.3d
890, 896 (7th Cir. 2016). The moving party is entitled to
summary judgment if no reasonable fact-finder could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller,
570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws
all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.
Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717
(7th Cir. 2018).
Riddle failed to respond to the defendants' summary
judgment motion. Accordingly, facts alleged in the motion are
deemed admitted so long as support for them exists in the
record. See S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1 (“A
party opposing a summary judgment motion must . . . file and
serve a response brief and any evidence . . . that the party
relies on to oppose the motion. The response must . . .
identif[y] the potentially determinative facts and factual
disputes that the party contends demonstrate a dispute of
fact precluding summary judgment.”); Smith v.
Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003)
(“[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by
the local rules results in an admission”); Brasic
v. Heinemanns, Inc., 121 F.3d 281, 285-286 (7th Cir.
1997) (affirming grant of summary judgment where the
nonmovant failed to properly offer evidence disputing the
movant's version of the facts). This does not alter the
summary judgment standard, but it does “reduce the
pool” from which facts and inferences relative to the
motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419,
426 (7th Cir. 1997).
relevant times on July 10, 2017, the individual defendants
were acting as law enforcement officers for the City of
Columbus Police Department. Officer Dickman responded to a
dispatch call at the Gateway Apartments at Phoenix Court, in
reference to a welfare check on a black male subject passed
out in a Chevy Cavalier, which was located in the parking
lot. Dkt. 66-2, ¶ 3. While awaiting back-up, Officer
Dickman observed in plain view an open black bag on the
passenger seat of Mr. Riddle's vehicle. Dkt. 66-2, ¶
6. In the bag, he saw cash, sandwich baggies, a pill bottle,
and digital scales with residue on them. Id. Based
upon Officer Dickman's training and experience, he
recognized these items to be associated with the use and/or
distribution of illegal drugs. Id. In addition, he
observed an open alcohol container in the center console.
about three minutes, Officer Ben Quesenbery arrived on scene.
Id., ¶ 7. During these officers'
interaction with Mr. Riddle, he resisted officers and bit
Officer Dickman very hard on his right bicep. Dkt. 66-2,
¶¶ 9-13; Dkt. 66-3, ¶¶ 7-9. Mr. Riddle
fled from officers, but he was eventually subdued through the
use of a taser and arrested. Dkt. 66-2, ¶ 14; Dkt. 66-3,
¶ 10. Medical personnel arrived and began to treat Mr.
Riddle. Dkt. 66-2, ¶ 18. It is standard protocol for a
person subjected to a taser deployment to be taken to the
hospital for assessment. Id. Also, because Mr.
Riddle bit Officer Dickman, he wanted Mr. Riddle tested for
any communicable disease that may have been transmitted.
Clapp, Velten, and Wright along with other officers not named
as defendants in this matter, responded to the scene
following the initial interaction as back-up. Dkt. 66-5,
¶ 4; Dkt. 66-8 ¶ 4; Dkt. 66-7, ¶ 4. Officer
Clapp rode with Mr. Riddle in the ambulance to the Columbus
Regional Hospital for medical clearance. Dkt. 66-5, ¶ 5.
Detective Kushman responded to the apartment complex to
assist in the investigation. Dkt. 66-4, ¶ 4. After
speaking with and gathering information from Dickman and
reviewing the scene, Kushman requested and obtained
judicially authorized search warrants for the vehicle and for
Mr. Riddle's blood. Id. at ¶ 6.
County Magistrate Joseph Meek reviewed the affidavits drafted
by Kushman providing probable cause for the issuance of the
warrants and signed warrants for the vehicle (at
approximately 2:25 p.m.) and for the blood sample (at
approximately 2:27 p.m.). Id. at ¶¶ 5-7;
Dkt. 66-9; Dkt. 66-10. Kushman assisted in executing the
search warrant on the vehicle at the scene. Dkt. 66-4, ¶
Linneweber volunteered to take the blood draw warrant to
Columbus Regional Hospital. Dkt. 66-1, ¶ 4. Detective
Linneweber served the warrant and explained the contents to
hospital staff and to Mr. Riddle. Dkt. 66-1, ¶ 5. Det.
Linneweber also attempted to show the warrant to Mr. Riddle.
Id. Detective Linneweber and Officer Clapp waited
outside of Mr. Riddle's hospital room while staff
performed the blood draw. Id. at ¶ 6. Detective
Linneweber believes the blood was drawn by hospital staff at
or near 2:45 p.m. on that date, but he does not have a
specific recollection. Id. Despite not recalling the
exact time blood was taken, he was aware that it was drawn
after he served the warrant. Id. at ¶ 6. The
warrant was left with hospital staff to be added to Mr.
Riddle's discharge paperwork. Id. at ¶ 7.
None of the officers conducted the blood draw. Dkt. 66-1,
¶ 6; Dkt. 66-2, ¶ 23; Dkt. 66-3, ¶ 16; Dkt.
66-4, ¶ 12; Dkt. 66-5, ¶ 7; Dkt. 66-6, ¶ 5;
Dkt. 66-7, ¶ 7; Dkt. 66-8, ¶ 7.
to hospital records, Mr. Riddle arrived at 1:12 p.m. and was
discharged from the hospital at approximately 5:38 p.m. Dkt.
66-11. At 1:47 p.m. the nurse noted Mr. Riddle was
uncooperative with medical staff's attempts to take his
pulse, blood pressure, and oxygen and “Pt declines lab
draw; Pending court order…” Id., p.
3. At 2:02 p.m. the nurse noted that “Pt
pending tx after obtaining court order.” Id.
at 10. Hospital staff requested a blood draw at 2:13 p.m. for
diagnostic and treatment purposes before Mr. Riddle could be
medically cleared for jail. Id. p. 11. A. nurse
collected Plaintiff's ...