United States District Court, D. Kansas
TODD J. LLOYD, Plaintiff,
ERIC C. BULLER, et. al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Thomas Marten, United States District Judge
Todd J. Lloyd filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging three Hutchinson Police Department
officers, as well as a Reno County intensive supervision
officer, violated his constitutional rights when they used
excessive force during his arrest. Dkt. 19. All four
defendants move for dismissal of the First Amended Complaint,
arguing they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 21. As
part of his opposition, plaintiff filed two motions to admit
evidence (Dkt. 36 and 38) and a motion to compel defendants
to produce the audio/video dash-camera footage of the arrest
(Dkt. 39). Defendants countered with a motion to stay
discovery (Dkt. 41) pending a ruling on their motion to
dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the court denies the
motion to dismiss and all related motions.
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges, in
April 24, 2014, officers from the Hutchinson Police
Department went to plaintiff's residence to arrest him on
a warrant for a community corrections violation. According to
plaintiff, he and his girlfriend, Jennifer Hartman, were
walking down the street near his mother's house when
defendants Eric Buller and Josh Radloff, officers with the
Hutchinson Police Department, approached them.
Officer Buller got out of his patrol vehicle, he told
plaintiff “he was under arrest and to stop.” FAC
at 4. At that time, plaintiff was under the influence of
methamphetamine. Plaintiff, in an effort to get Officers
Buller and Radloff to shoot him, pulled out two knives and
yelled for them to shoot him. Ms. Hartman, not wanting
anything to happen to plaintiff, positioned herself between
him and the officers. Plaintiff then climbed over a fence and
Ms. Hartman followed him.
plaintiff and Ms. Hartman made it back to a paved road,
Officers Buller and Radloff, now with Don Wilkins,
plaintiff's intensive supervision officer, approached
them. Officer Radloff told Ms. Hartman to get down. Ms.
Hartman continued to keep herself between plaintiff and the
officers, but eventually dropped to her knees. Plaintiff then
threw down his knives and dropped to his knees. As plaintiff
began to lay face down on the ground, Officer Radloff ran up
and kicked plaintiff in the face, causing plaintiff to rear
up in a defensive position and ask, “why did you kick
me?” Officer Radloff then tased plaintiff, while
Officer Buller tackled plaintiff to the ground. While
plaintiff was on the ground, Officer Buller began punching
plaintiff on his head, back, and arms. At the same time,
Officer Radloff struck plaintiff's back with his taser
several times, with each hit sending a circuit of shock.
Carey then arrived and joined the assault on plaintiff.
Id. at 6. Carey punched and kneed plaintiff on the
back. Wilkins also kneed plaintiff in the back. Radloff then
placed the nose of his taser against plaintiff's back and
delivered a “drive stun” even though plaintiff
was not resisting arrest or fighting defendants. Id.
at 6, 9. Plaintiff was then placed in handcuffs.
hand-cuffed, Radloff pressed plaintiff's face into the
dirt and Buller, Wilkins, and Carey continued punching and
kneeing plaintiff's back and arms for about a minute.
Radloff straightened up his body and delivered a knee drop
onto plaintiff, causing him to go unconscious.
was placed into a police vehicle and charged with kidnapping.
Plaintiff was later convicted of kidnapping.
Motion to Dismiss
12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a complaint only when the
factual allegations fail to “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“All well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from
conclusory allegations, must be taken as true.”
Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir.
1984); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court construes
any reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Tal
v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1252 (10th Cir. 2006).
Qualified Immunity ...