Motion for Reconsideration with Memorandum in Support and Plaintiff's Response

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

WESTERN DIVISON

CLEAMTEE GARNER, father and next of kin 
of Edward Eugene Garner, a deceased 
minor.

Plaintiff,
vs

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF 
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE; WYETH CHANDLER, 
Mayor of Memphis; and JAY W. EIUBBARD, 

j Director of Memphis Police,!
! Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION 
No. C-75-145

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to set aside its 
order of February 29, 1980, and the judgment entered herein on 
March 3, 1980, and to grant plaintiff a rehearing for the 
following reasons: j

1. The Court erred in ruling that plaintiff should not be j 
afforded the opportunity to adduce additions! evidence, or in the 
alternative, to make an offer of proof before decision in this 
case.

2. The Court erred in deciding the ultimate questions of j
law posed on remand without affording the plaintiff the oppor­
tunity to fully brief and argue the merits.

3. The Court erred in upholding the constitutionality of 
the policies and customs of the Memphis Police Department regard­
ing use of deadly force by Memphis police officers.

Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for 
reconsideration and for an extention of ninety (90) days after 
the granting of this Motion for Reconsideration in which to file 
a full brief on the merits and an offer of proof to be followed byj

I



i] oral argument.
'il! Dated: March , 1980

Respectfully submitted.

STEVEN L. WINTER 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

WALTER LEE BAILEY, JR.
161 Jefferson Avenue 
Suite 901, Tenoke Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Attorneys for Plaintiff

-  2 -



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

WESTERN DIVISION

CLEAMTEE GARNER, father and next of kin of 
Edward Eugene Garner, a deceased minor.

Plaintiff,
vs.
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, City of Memphis 
Tennessee; WYETH CHANDLER, Mayor of 
Memphis; and JAY W. HUBBARD, Director 
of Memphis Police,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION 
No. C-75-145

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On February 29, 1980, this Court entered an order conclud-
iing that further evidentiary proceedings were inappropriate under |
» 
Ithe circumstances. It further ordered that the decision in 

Monell V. Department of Social Services, 435 U.S. 658 (1978), 
did not require reconsideration of this Court's previous opinion, 
despite the remand for reconsideration by the Sixth Circuit in 
Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 600 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1979).j 
Finally, the Court perfunctorily answered the four questions posed 
by the Sixth Circuit for determination on remand, and subsequentlyiI
on March 3, 1980, entered judgment in favor of the defendants. |

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Fed. R. j
Civ. P. 59(3) to reconsider and vacate the judgment. |

"[A] motion which asks the court to vacate j
and reconsider, or even to reverse its prior |
holding, may properly be treated under Rule 59(e) 
as a motion to alter or amend the judgment."

Smith V. Hudson, 500 F.2d 60 (6th Cir. 1979).
This Court erred in holding that plaintiff was barred from

adducing additional evidence "by established principles or res



judicata." Memorandum Op, at 9. Only the judgment for the indi­
vidual defendant Hymon was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. The
judgment in favor of the City was specifically remanded by the

I
Sixth Circuit for redetermination by this Court. Plainly then, 
the principles of res judicata do not apply because there was no i 
binding judgment on that issue in this case. i

Having ruled against the plaintiff on whether there should |
!

be further hearings in this case, the Court further erred in j
proceeding to determine the merits without affording the plaintiff
a full opportunity to argue and be heard.

A fundamental requirement of due process is "the 
opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean,
234 U.S. 385. It is an opportunity which must 
be granted at a meaningful time in a meaningful 
manner.

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). "Nor is there any 
doubt that notice and hearing are prerequisite to due process 
in civil proceedings." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. 
McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 154 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). 
Here, plaintiff never had the opportunity to argue or brief the 
merits of the issues posed on remand. While it is true that 
plaintiff filed memoranda and that oral argument was heard on 
December 14, 1979, all of these memoranda and arguments addressed 
only the issue of whether further hearings should be held. The 
merits were discussed only incidentally, if at all. Indeed, dur­
ing oral argument on December 14, 1979, this Court specifically 
asked plaintiff's counsel what procedures would be necessary for 
determination if the Court were to deny a hearing. In plaintiff Is 
memoranda of January 14, 1980, submitted pursuant to the Court's 
specific request, plaintiff requested that: he be allowed to
formulate and tender an offer of proof as to what would have been 
presented at trial; he be allowed to submit a full brief on the 
legal and factual issues of the case; and that there be a full 
oral argument after the submission of the brief and the proffer.

I

-  2 -



Anything less would be a denial of the opportunity to be heard 
"at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong, 
supra.

Accordingly, plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for 
reconsideration of its judgment and order and that he be given 
ninety (90) days from the time of the granting of this Motion 
for Reconsideration in which to file a full brief on the merits 
and an offer of proof. Plaintiff further requests oral argument 
fore this Court after the submission of the brief and the proffer

Respectfully submitted.

be-

STEVEN L. WINTER
10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

WALTER LEE BAILEY, JR.
161 Jefferson Avenue 
Suite 901, Tenoke Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Attorneys fo Plaintiff 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for 

Reconsideration and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Recon­
sideration have been served by United States mail, postage prepaid 
to Henry L. Klein, Esq., 100 No. Main Building, Suite 3500,
Memphis Tennessee 38103, this ___ day of March, 1980.

Steven L. Winter

-  3 -



TN Tfll', UNTTr 
FO;  ̂ TllK WKSTI 

Wl
n STA'i'K.s I) I .s'nnc’'!' c q u r 'I’ 
I’M DIS'l’R ICT Ol'’ TMNNFSSIv 
.".'I’l'IRN m V I S l O N

CLI':AM'1’I':K GARNI:i ,̂ faltuM: <mtl iK'xt. o f  
kin  o f  RDWARI) GARNl'iK, <i 
d c c c n s O ' J  minor,

P l a i n t i f f ,

V  .

M1:;M1’11IP. POLICi; DliPARTMKN'l', CJ'I'Y Ol'’ 
MF.MPlilS, 'I’l'lNiMFOSi:!':; Wy I'I'I’H CilANDI,FR 
Mayor o f  Mcrnpli i s ; yjihI MAY W. UIJRBARD, 
D i r e c t o r  o f  Mo.uphis Pol ice ' ,

De feiuUinl.s .

CTVTT, ACTION 
NO. C -75-145

PDA I NJ’ 1 S RFSPON M': 'I’O ’I'ill 
MKHORANDUM FUBMm'Fi )  BY 'I'lH

: .-'.UPPBI'lMI'lNl’AL 
; DFl'i'.NDANTS

P l a i n t i f f  r c s p e c t f u i l y  submi ts  t l i i s  b r i e f  r e p l y  to  tlie 

d e f e n d a n t s '  l a s t  memorandum. Bc;cause de f e nJ an ts  s e r i o u s l y  

l u i sconce ive  tlie d e t e r m i n a t i v e  i s s u e s ,  p i c i i n t i f f  w i s h e s  to  make 

the f o l l o w i n g  f o u r  ci  . a r i f i c a t i o n s  .

1. ’I’lu' i)i f  fcirenco Bel wef'n_a Pood I’ai ldi  Defonso as
* I’V '111__ludiA/i d'la 1__a nd a M u n i c i p a l i t y :

Defeniiantis ma in ta in  th a t  i f  the i n d i v i d u a l  de f en dant s

a r e  e n t i t l e d  to a gootl f a i t h  defense;  then the m u n i c i p a l i t y  must

1;C a i  w a l l .  'I'hoy s l : a t e :  " I t  would seem r a t h e r  c l e a r  and

axiomal i c  tliat, i f  Lhe- o f f i c e ) '  was p i s i i f i e d  in  us i ng  d ea d ly  f o r c e

under Mie c i  rcum;-. ta noos in thia: ca s e ,  ( h e  c i t y ' s  p o l i c y  o r  custom

v.’ou l d  l i a r d ly  g i v e  ri.se; to a c l a i m  o f  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  elcpr i va t i o n . "

Dfs .  ai. 2. ltd. I.he .”>ixl:h C i ivt i i l .  d id  not. l iold 1 liat tlie o f f i c e r

was j u s t i f i e d  in u s i n g  d ea d ly  f o r c e .  As noted by the de f e nd an ts

thcmsc.'Lves, the  S i x t h  C i r e :u i t  o n l y  hfi ld th a t  "an i n d i v i d u a l

( j f f i e : e r  has a c i a a l i f i e d  p r i v i l e g e  o r  iminunil.y from l i a b i l i t y

from coi'is t i  tu I i ona 1 c l a i m s  bas ed  on gocYd f a i t l i  performance;  o f

h i s  dul ' i cs  in ae.’cor ( lanco w.i th s t atu te j ry  eir aidmi n i s t r a t i v e



a u t l i o r j L y .  . . . "  _YL-_ ‘■'1̂_» GCjO F .2d  52,

54 (Gtli ('.Lr. I ‘i7‘» ) .  t 1u2 f a d  liliaL f.lu! o f f i e o r  on tho bo a t  }\as a

r i y l i t  to  r e l y  on a rnun.ic.ipal pol i f . ’ / d o e s n ' t  e s t a b l i s l i  t l iat  the  

munic ipa l  pol icry is c o n s t i t u l d o n a  1 ly a c c c p t i l r l c . Tlio o f f i c e r  

was c n t i t l o d  to y jod  f a i t h  d e f e n s e  Irecause lie "was taught  tha t  

it. Wits proptu" to h i ]  1 a f l c ' e ing  fc ' lon r at l i er  tlian run tlae ri .sks  

o f  a l l o w i n g  liim to ( ' s c a p e . "  £d. a t  53. 'I'lu2 i s s u e  now b e f o r e  

t i l l s  Court  i s  the- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y  o f  what the o f f i c e r  was 

t aufjhi..

De fendants  f a r t h e r  a rgm'  1:hat the m u n ic ip a l  de f end an t  c o u l d  

r e l y  on the p r i o r  d e c i s i o n s  igaholding ' I ' .C.A.  §40-803.  But,  as  

made' c l e a r  in  evc'ry b r i e f ,  nu'morandum, and o r a l  argument in t h i s  

c a s e ,  the S i x t h  C i r c u i t  lias iu;ver ' u ' l d  tl iat T . C . A .  §40-003 i s  

c o n s t i t u t i o n . i l  as . i pp l i ed  to <i case'  s u c ’i as t h i s  one i n v o l v i n g  

the shootinej  o f  .i nondangero is f ler ' i iKf  f e l o n ,  known to be unarmed.  

I'lef endants  ' cit. it. icin l.o Wi ^ey does not. e s t a b l i s h  o t h e r w i s e .

W i l e y  i n v o l v e d  f a c t s  f a r  d i f f e r e n t  from the i n s t a n t  c a s e .  The 

c o u r t  s p e c i f i c a l l y  noteud th a t  t.he defendant.s c o u l d  r e a s o n a b l y  

have assumed tha t  the v i c t i m s  v;ere .armed s i n c e  they  had j u s t  r o b ­

bed a s p o r t i n g  goods store.' ;.ind, in f a c t ,  a " s t a s h "  o f  guns and 

ammunition wc're' l a ln ' r  found lu'.ir where'  the victi im l a y .  Wi l e y  v .

Memphis__I'o 1 i c i' I m.'p.i i.~ t inent., 54 0 l•'.2d 1 247, 1253 (Gl.h Ci. r .  1977) .

In c o n c u r r i n g  in  Wi 1 e v , Judcfe McCra.'e s j ieci  f  i c a l  l y  noted t h a t :

On s ( ' V ( . ' r a l  occas i .ons ,  ftd\e S i x t h  C i r c u i t  has ]  
approved  a r u l e  th a t  p e r m i t t e d  the use o f  
d e a d ly  f o r c e  by po l i ce '  o f f i c e r s  to  apprehend  
.a su sp ec te d  f lee' i iui  fe-lon when the f e l o n  .ap- 
pe.’.areel t.o p re s e n t  .a thrc;.it: to hum.in l i f e .

I d . at  125G. It f o l l o w s  that  de fend.ui ts  c o u l d  not have r e l i e d

in good f a i t h  on tl ieso cas es  m.a in ta  in i  nej a p o l i c y  that  a u t h o r i z e d

the shootinej  o f  unarmed, nondangerous  f l ce inc j  f e l o n s .

2. The Nature  o f  a P o s s i b l e  Coe.)d I ' a i th  Defense :

Deif('lui.ints .a.ssume' the' a[)p 1 i e.sal.>i l i  ty o f  a ejood f a i t h  d e -  | 

fense  which,  in  fac’ t,  a n t i e i j a a t e s  tlie .Supreme C o u r t ' s  dcic i s ion in

r T



\

Ov/on V . Cit-y u C I l u h ' p L ' i i i  kuu'i ■, t-lcj. , N<j. 7tJ-177‘J, arqued  t h i s  p a s t
' " ' i/

luonLli. 4B U.d.li.V.' .  3445 ( I d B O ) .  i lowovor,  oven i f  tlio Court  

does a l l o w  such a d e f e n s e ,  d e f e n d a n t s '  arcjun\ents ace  not t e n a b l e  

I jecause they ni L'-.cons I'.rue the na t u r e  o f  svich a ' . iefease.  Once

LKjain, defendaj i l .s j'e 1 y on _h^'ij-e 'f-__Ci t y  o f  Ihrovidence,  463 F.Supp.

5B5 ( l ) . R . l .  1B7B.), c i t e d  in Canu ; r_v. Meinpliis P o l i ce  Depar tment ,

600 I' '.2d 52, 53 n . l  (6th c: ir .  1070) .  Ilowevi 'r,  as a l r e a d y  d e v e l ­

oped in p l a  i n l.i I f ' [Trevi.ous nenioianduni, I lu' passa:jc'  in J.i(. ■ i  t e 

noted i)y the C,aciu'i: c o u r t  s p e c i f i c a l l y  q u e s t i o n s  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  

o f  a jood f a i t h  d e f e n s e  to  a t;ase in v o l v in q  a l l e g a t i o n s  o f  the  

iiiaint(.!nance o f  t r a i n i n g  and superv . i s i on  p o l i c i e s  t l iat  a r e  i n a d e ­

qua te .  As a l r e a d y  e s L a b l i s l i e d  in  p l a i n t i f f ' s  p r e v i o u s  uiernoranduin, 

the p ro p e r  qnest . ion i s  wliethc,').' the* p o l i c i c r j  o f  the Memphis P o l i c e  

Department were  d e l i b e r a t e l y  i n d i f f e r e n t  to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

r i  gi l ts  o f  t.lu' d '̂ccHlcnil. .

3. 'I'he Ava j 1 ab i  1 i I y o f A CrKid I'ai.ldi Defense  
_J_s__A__0'lestiion o f __Fac L :

As defondat i ts  do not indeed d i s p u t e ,  the ava i  lalai l i  t y  o f  

.1 (food f a i t l i  d ( ' fcns ( '  is "a ( j nes t i on  o f  tael f o r  tlu; d i s t i ' i . c t  co ur t  

to rfiso 1 V( ' . . . . " I ' ne l l  v.  Hens in jet:, 4B'i F .2d 1U14, 1U17-1B (71 h 

i ' i r . 1673).  At I h(' t a lu r i ' .s i ('•(jue;; I , ) > 1 a i n I i I' f  has a 1 re.u ly 

b r i e f e d  the fa - iua l  ( j iu'st.ions th a t  ik.smI fiirth(.'i: p r o o f  and d e c i ­

s i o n .

Addi t i on a l  Ibi ndi nejs must, be made b e f o r e  i t  may 
be p r o p e r l y  conc luded  t.hat, ditft.’U l ints a re  immune, 
and i t  may be nece.ssary to a'ldui'te a d d i t i o n a l  
e v i d en ce  f o r  those  f i nd i ru j s  t:o be made.'.

McCrciy v.__P.urre 11, 516 F.2el 357, 370 (4th c i r .  1976) ,  P l a i n t i f f

o n l y  i.'ecjuests the opporl  unite/ to adduct'  t.hat a d d i t i o n a l  ev iden ce .

*/  I t  i s  i nt'.err'ftt intf to note  tha t  <at: o r a l  artjument b e f o r e  the  
Bupreni't Cour t counse l  f o r  t he' muni c i p.a 1 i t.y conceded t hat  i n the  
ca s e  o I.' a c l ( j a r  munic.'ijral p o l i c y  th e re  would  be no .i.mmunity.
4fl U . S . b . W .  at: 3446.

-  3 -

1
■/

■ 5- 'a



4. ‘4* i ‘ ' (-‘f’Oil l''.ii.l'h Dc^fonso
W i i l  N(jt. Dii-poso oi Tli.i.s C.isc::

Wli i lo i t  .is undGrst-.UKlalDlo tha t  in  p r o v i d i n g  z e a lo u s  

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  d(j/. c-sidants ' eounsc!]. would focrus on t)\o q u e s t i o n  

o f  damages,  the Pad.  is Idiat. d(>.spj t(' de Pc.’i idants ' r c ip res ent a t ion  

t:o l l ie c o n t r a r y ,  I lie dourt  cannot  .simply di .spose o f  t l i i s  case  

wit l i  a d e c i s i o n  on the good Paitl i  i irmunity q u e s t i o n .  i'lie Court  

must n e c e s s a r i l y  f ace  and dec.i.c.le tlu'  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y  o f  tlie 

Mt.'mphis I j .heral  iisi' of dcsiilly f o r c e  po l l  (.■'/. Of.herwi.se,  d e f e n d -  

ant.s co u ld  coni, inne, ;ui .inf .i 11 .i. 11 nn , shfiot-.i ng unarmed f lec inc j  felo.n.s 

in r e l i a n c e '  on t.hi' ah.sence oP n j ud i c i a l  deL ermi nat.ion o f  uncon-  

s I; i L u 1 1 o na ] i. I y. 'I'lnit i wliy’ I lu' law provide';-; f o r  d e c l a r a t o r y  

.ind injunct  .i VC i.a'l.ief . The ( ’oui.'t v; i I I have to d e c id e  these  ques — 

t . ions.  P l a i n t i f f  rer;j3ec t f n 1 1 .suhmJ I r; tlial. tdu; Court  s l iould  

a v a i l  i t s e l f ,  of f.ht; h e n e f i t  o f  a [ i i r t h e r  t r i a l  and h e a r in g  to  

in form tl iat d e c i s i o n .

Ih;spect fu l l ' /  submi t t ed .

STKVI’N 1,. Wiirrhl^
10 Colnmlius C i r c l e  
■Suite 20 3 0
New York,  New York 10019

WAhTIlP I.KI': I'.AirilY, OP.
1 O 1 d e l  I e r ; ; o n  A v e n u e
.'■u i I (' '.»() I , 'I'c'nokf' liu ,i Id.i ng
Memphis, Tennessee  38103

A t t o r n o v s  f o r  P l a i n t i f f

(' I ;kj' i_f icATh CM.'' f i h i d re o

1 herel jy cc ' rt . i fy  l.liat a copy o f  tlie fc j regoing P l a i n t i f f ' s  

] dspon; ;e  to tlie a i ppl emeu l.a 1 Memorandum .Submitted Ijy the Defend­

ants  has bet.'n :;ervt'd liy f i l a c ing  ;nmie in t ' k ' On i toil S t a t e s  ma i l ,  

p o s t a g e  p r e p a i d ,  to Ik'iiry h. K l e i n ,  b s q . ,  100 No. Main B u i l d i n g ,  

S u i t e  .1900, Mem))his, Tc' iinessee 38103, t h i s  day o f  Feb rua ry ,

1980.

.SI.even I.,. W in t e r

1
/