A federal judge has sided with Webster County and other defendants in a civil lawsuit stemming from a deputy-involved shooting after a high-speed car chase, ruling the plaintiffs did not prove their claims of constitutional and other violations.
In a 15-page opinion handed down March 16, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills issued a summary judgment for the county and then-Sheriff Tim Mitchell, then-Deputy Dillion Cates and Deputy Blake Love of the Webster County Sheriff’s Department.
Plaintiffs were Grenada Countians Robert Lamont Salley and Bonita Cunningham of Gore Springs, who filed the complaint two years earlier in the federal court’s Greenville division. Mills wrote they did not produce enough evidence to warrant a trial, hence the summary judgment.
The information that follows is taken from Mills’ order and previous reporting by the Progress-Times:
Factual Background
On March 3, 2018, Salley and Cunningham were traveling to Mantee to visit Cunningham’s sister. During their travels, they were approaching a police roadblock on Highway 9 in Walthall, and instead of proceeding through it, decided to turn around in a vacant hunting camp driveway and drive in the opposite direction.
Having noticed the plaintiffs’ avoidance of the roadblock, and “possess of a curious disposition,” Cates attempted to initiate a traffic stop using his flashing blue lights and siren. However, the plaintiffs did not stop their car.
Salley, in a later statement to the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation, admitted that he knew Cates was attempting to pull him over, but that he was scared, based on “prior incidents with the Webster County police,” and decided to “speed” and drive to his home.
The plaintiffs did not call dispatch to notify the police that they would like to proceed to a public location with others present to effectuate the stop. Instead, Mills’ order relates, they led the police on a chase through three counties while reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, frequently traveling in the wrong lane of travel to pass motorists and running stop signs, among other illegal and dangerous actions.
At some point in Webster County, Love joined the chase with his blue lights flashing and sirens on. Despite Cates rear-ending Salley in an attempt to end the chase; despite one attempt to use a police maneuver called “boxing him in”; and despite Salley nearly hitting a pickup truck at a high rate of speed, the pursuit continued.
Late in the chase in Grenada County, the plaintiffs overshot a turn and their car came to rest in a grass ditch on the shoulder of Millhouse Road. This provided pursuing deputies Cates and Love the opportunity to exit their police vehicles and approach the car in yet another attempt to end the chase. The plaintiffs were repeatedly told to show their hands and to exit the vehicle.
Nonetheless, Salley restarted his car, turned the wheel to return to the roadway and “hit the gas,” causing the car to leap back onto the roadway in the direction of Cates. As a result of Salley reinitiating the chase, the deputies fired multiple shots into the suspect’s vehicle. Despite being wounded by multiple gunshots, and having the rear driver’s side tire shot flat, the plaintiffs continued their journey until they arrived at Salley’s mother’s house in Gore Springs.
Cunningham, the passenger in the car for the entire pursuit, willingly presented herself to the police for apprehension. Salley did not. He ran through the house, out the back door and crawled underneath a truck on the property — “continuing his pattern of defying the orders of law enforcement officers.”
It was only later that Salley came out from under the truck to be arrested by the officers on scene, although Mills said it is unclear how long this took or how it was effected. Twelve days after the police chase, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
They sought compensatory and punitive damages of at least $1 million. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Carlos Moore of Grenada, also submitted a notice of claims with the county’s liability carrier seeking $500,000 for each client for damages.
Mitchell said after the chase that Salley received superficial wounds. Officers transported him to Baptist Memorial Hospital in Oxford for treatment and later delivered him into the custody of the Grenada Police Department. Salley, now 47, was released on his own recognizance the same day from the Grenada County Jail on charges of aggravated assault with a vehicle and two counts of contempt of court. District Attorney Doug Evans later said charges against him in Webster and Grenada counties were remanded pending further investigation.
K-9 Allegations
The court found that allegations maintained by the plaintiffs in their complaint, and in their responses to the motions to dismiss filed earlier in the case that the police released a police dog on Salley, and that the police allowed a “K-9” to “attack Salley,” were false misrepresentations. At the time, the WCSD did not have a K-9 unit.
Additionally, Mills said plaintiffs’ counsel had made no attempt to correct the false statements perpetuated in their filings surrounding this police conduct, which the judge said directly conflicted Moore’s own clients’ statements to the MBI and their testimony in their depositions.
“These misrepresentations and the ongoing failure to correct the record by plaintiffs’ counsel are reprehensible and border on blatant attorney misconduct,” Mills wrote.
Procedural History
After the court ruled on the defendants’ motions to dismiss in February 2019, these counts from the plaintiffs’ complaint remained:
Federal claims against all defendants:
• making an unreasonable search and seizure without due process, conspiring to deny the plaintiffs equal protections and refusing the plaintiffs Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment protections.
• failing to instruct, supervise and control officers from unlawfully and maliciously arresting the plaintiffs.
• depriving plaintiffs of their Fourth Amendment protection against excessive force.
• violating the plaintiffs of due process, equal protection and their civil rights.
State claims against Cates and Love individually only:
• negligent and/or grossly negligent hiring, monitoring, training and supervision.
• negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• civil assault and battery
• reckless disregard for the safety and wellbeing of the plaintiffs.
and against Love individually only; bystander liability.
Discussion
Regarding the plaintiffs allegations of unreasonable arrest/search and seizure, Mills wrote, “[T]he undisputed facts show that the officers first attempted to detain plaintiffs after they seemingly evaded a police checkpoint by turning around in a vacant driveway. Based on the facts available to the officer at the moment of attempted arrest, the court finds that there were sufficient facts for a reasonable person or officer to conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.”
Mills also said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate excessive force was used.
“Salley knowingly made the decision to ignore stop signs, cross over double yellow lines to pass other cars and to reach speeds of 100 miles per hour — all placing innocent motorists at risk,” he wrote. “Additionally, the deputies took several steps provided for in the Webster County Sherriff Office’s Pursuit Policies to end the pursuit before resorting to deadly force. As such, the court has little difficulty in concluding that it was reasonable for the police to use deadly force in an attempt to end the chase before innocent pedestrians or motorists were harmed by the plaintiffs’ reckless actions.”
He also found that no constitutional violation of the plaintiffs’ right to due process occurred because Mitchell and the two deputies were not “federal actors.” Mills said the plaintiffs failed to point to any evidence in support of their claims of due process violations, writing, “The facts clearly show that the deputies only discharged their weapons after the deputies’ other efforts to end the chase failed and the plaintiffs reinitiated the car chase.”
Mills also dismissed the equal protection claims, stating they were factually unsupported. Additionally, he noted such claims fall under the federal Civil Rights Act, which is only applicable to “persons” and cannot be maintained against the county.
“Overarchingly, the plaintiffs have failed to support any of their allegations with factual support; plaintiffs seem to hang their hat on their opinion that any discharge of a weapon by a police officer is by definition ‘unreasonable conduct by a police officer.’ Mills stated. “The law is not on their side in that regard. The plaintiffs have wholly failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation.”
Mills dismissed all federal law claims against Mitchell, Cates and Love (the latter two in their individual and official capacities) with prejudice, meaning they can’t be brought forth again. Cates is now a deputy with the Choctaw County Sheriff’s Department and Love is a part-time Webster County deputy.
Additionally, Mills said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a constitutional violation occurred in accordance with an official municipal policy or custom. Therefore, he said Webster County was entitled dismissal of all federal claims brought against it.
Mills then addressed the remaining state law claims against the deputies in their individual capacities. All state law claims against the county and the deputies in their official capacities were dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss phase of the case.
The court found the deputies were both within their course and scope of employment, and their conduct did not constitute any criminal offense. As such, he said immunity applies in the case barring the state claims raised against both Cates and Love in their individual capacities.
“It is hereby ordered that defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted,” Mills concluded.
Attorneys Daniel and Mary McKay Griffith of Cleveland represented the defendants.
