Agenda of Matters to be Discussed; Correspondence and Court Documents 1987-1993 (Redacted)
Correspondence
July 2, 1987 - December 7, 1993
179 pages
-
Case Files, Garner Hardbacks. Agenda of Matters to be Discussed; Correspondence and Court Documents 1987-1993 (Redacted), 1987. cb9bf653-2fdd-f111-84ea-7ced8d2181dd. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/eee18559-2258-4682-b103-969ec9b48ef8/agenda-of-matters-to-be-discussed-correspondence-and-court-documents-1987-1993-redacted. Accessed November 11, 2026.
Copied!
[||15fd215f-3d33-40c5-87cc-7ecf64dc9b97||] ..
,I
MEMftHIS: 18101
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTIRN 01STIUCT OP' TENNESSEE
OP'P'ICE OP' THE CLERK
J. P'RANKLIN IU10. CLERK · •
901-121· 1111
Mr. Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Mr. D'Army Bailey
Attorneys at Law
Suite 901 - Tenoke Bldg.
Memphis, TN 38103
Mr. Steven L. Winter
2030 - 10 Columbus Cr.
New York, N.Y. 10019
Mr.· Henry L. Klein
Attorney at Law
770 Estate Pl.
Memphis, TN 38119
Mr. Arthur Shea
Assistant City Attorney
Room 314-125 N. Mid-America Mall
Memphis, TN 38103
MAR 3 0 1987
JACKSON 38302
ltESIDENT 01:P'UTY
901 ,21 esa•
RE: 75-145 -H CLEAMTEE GARNER, ET AL -v- MEI\1Pli POLICE DEPT. ET AL
STATUS CONFERENCE L_:i
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE• [8J_
DATE: M T. W e) F
TIME: ..3.'.2.0 A.M., ~
PLACE: 9th Floor, Federal Building , Fb:1'n 957,167 N. !-'.ain St., i-lerrphis, 'IN
TRIAL DATE: M T w TH F
TRIAL TIME: /;.,3 0 A. M. ,@
PLACE: 9th Floor, F'ederal Building, Courtroan 3, 167 !J. Main St., Metphis, 'IN
1'his is to advise you that the above has been set by Judge Horton on the date and
time specified above, for the purpose of discussing matt e rs pertaining to the above
styled case. The attorneys woo will try the case shall be present at all conforences .
Judge Horton will preside.
, .
---
---
-ACE-IDA OF MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED Kr STATUS AND/OR
PRETRIAL OONFERENCE WITH JUIXl: ODEll lDRTON
1) What is the nature of the case?
2) What are the facts?
-3) What are the contentions of the parties?
a) plaintiff (s)
b) defendant(s)
4) Jurisdictional or venue issues
5) Status of Discovery (conpleted?) if not, schedule for conpletion.
6) May the entire case to be tried before the U.S. Magistrate pursuant
to recent anendirents to 18 U.S.C . §636? • • •
7) Exchange of list of witnesses which each party will call.
8) Exchange of list of witnesses which each party ~ call (which may be
relied upon by other parties without need of separate subpoena).
9) Pre-marking, by Clerk of Court, of propo~ed exhibits, reserving
objections thereto (beginning with original plaintiff.)
10) Stipulations as to- authenticity of any of pre-marked exhibits?
11) Pretrial m::,tions to be ruled upon?
___ 12) Evidentiary issues which may be. disposed of?
--- 13) Order of presentation and/or proof to be decided?
___ 14) My arendrrents of pleadings?
--- 15) Dismissal and/or abandonrrent of any counts in Corrplaint (or defenses
in Mswer) , etc.?
--- 16) My issues as to appropriateness of parties, j oinder, etc.?
--- 17) (If jury trial demanded) may jury be waived?
18) Is this a case where the issue(s) of liability should be tried --- separately from the issues of damages? Should the damages aspect
be referred to the United States Magistrate?
___ 19) Photographs, Dem:mstrative items.
___ 20) May the arrount of da:mages (or sorre elements thereof) be stipulated?
21) Mq.y otrer el.eIIents of the case (or factual matters) be stipulated?
22) Have all depositions, interrogatories, admissions, etc., proposed to
be used in the trial, been filed with the Clerk? If not, schedule of
filing?
23) Are there any objections to admissibility of all, or portions of
depositions, interrogatories, admissions, etc. ? If so, these should
be argued at pretrial conference, i£ possible.
24) Designation of parts and depositions, interrogatories, etc. , for
use at trial?
25) Exchange of namas and qualilications of experts expected to be used.
26) /my witness problems (availability at certa.in ·ture, out-of-town, etc.).
27) niscussi.on of language (for Pretrial Order of Mem:>randun) for a brief
statenent, or outline, of the case.
~8) Discussion (for Pretrial Order or l1:!.norandt.m) of fon:wlation of the
contested issues in tre case.
29) Turely filing of Trial Mem::>randun.
30) (If jury trial) voir dire to be conducted by attorneys.
31) (If jury trial) /my special requests, known at this stage of case,
for instructions to jury at conclusion of the trial.
32) (If jury trial) Estimated nunber of prospective jurors needed.
33) (If jury trial) Length of closing argurent (i£ different from usual
length generally established by Court) .
34) Approximate length of trial.
35) Will case be ready for trial on date set?
36) Special problems, i£ any.
37) Settl.enent (conference? All damage evidence exchanged? Serious
negotiations had? Possibility of settl6rent without trial?)
38) (In the event this case is not the first case set on the trial date)
May this case be held from day to day?
39) Other matters
For a discussion of Pre-Trial Conference and a m::>dified form for a Pre-Trial
Order, see 23 Federal Rules Decisions 129-138.
..
r
Co.msel are further directed to confer prior to the Pre-Trial Ccnference. The
p.1rpose of this preliminary cooference between Cnmsel is to exchange infonnatioo
as to the ultimate issues of law and fact, eliminating wmecessary or irrelevant
issues that may appear in the pleadings or discovery; to arrive at all possible
stip.1latioos and exchan:3-e dOClJ'llel"lts which will be offered in evidence at the Trial.
After the Pre-Trial Cooference the Coort will enter a joint Pre-T~ial Order which
shall be cootrolling at the Trial. Therefore, prior to the Pre-'l'rial Conference,
Cainsel shalld prepare a joint ~rial Order. •
If an Attorney fails to appear at the Pre,-J!'rial Cooference or to canply with the
directioos set forth herein, an ex parte hearing may be held and jmgment of dis
missal or default or other apprcpriate J\Xigment entered. See Bule 7-, - ll, 16 and
26, Federal Jules of Civil Prccedure.
cc: Jooge Hortal
Courtroan Dep.tty
Jury Dep.Ity
Coort Reporter
Sincerely yo.irs,
J. Franklin Reid, Clerk
I
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND. INC.
99 Hudson Street, New York, N. Y. 10013 • {212) 219-1900
Professor Steven L. Winter
Univer sity of Miami
School of Law
P.O . Bo:x 248087
Coral Gables , Florida 33124 - 8087
May 8, 1987
Re : Garner v . Tennessee
Dear Steve:
This 1s just to let you know that Clyde will be
Garner hearing. Do you have anything that he shoul d
the complete file here? If you have any thoughts
please give him a call.
Thanks.
handling the
have, or is
on the case,
--Very truly yours,
Ralston
CSR/ gj /
CC : Clyde Murphy, Esq.
Walter L . Bai ley, Esq.
Conlrib11lio1111 are deduct ible for U.S. inrome ta; purpose~
The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. Inc. (LDF) is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) although
LDF was foundeo by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rignts. LOF nas had for over 25years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
• ~ \ y
MEMPH I S : 38103
J . l'RA N KLI N RE I O. CL.ERK
90, 52 1 3315
UNITE.D STATES DISTRICT COUR T
WEST ERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
OFF I CE OF THE CL.ERK
JUL 2 7 1981
JACKSON 38302
RES I O CN T O (P •~-v
go, 42 ' ss a e
i\lr. Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Mr. D'Arm y Bailey
Attorne ys at Law
*Revised 8/12/87 to add Mr . Murphy
Mr . Clyde Murphy
Suite 901 - Tenoke Bldg.
;\1lemphis, TN 38103
Mr. Steven L . Winter
2030 - LO Columbus Cr.
New York , N.Y . 10 019
Mr. Henry L. Klein
Attorney at Law
770 Est ate Pl.
Memphis, TN 38119
;\Ir. Arthur Shea
Assistant City Attorney
Room 314- 125 N. Mid-America Mall
Memphis, TN 38103
Attorney at Law
99 Hudson St.
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
RE: 75 -145 - H CLEA\ITEE GARNER, ET . .\.L -v- \ l E\!P litS PO LI C E DE PT. ET AL
STATUS CONFERENCE [__J
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE~ ~ ~ //
DATE : M T W TH @ _______ 1 ..,.../__,_f=_,/,,____,_ __ _
::, I .._I/ / • "-.----.=::--, '
TIME: -.=> , r ../ A.M., / ':! . M. ~ -
19 .::.~
~
PLACE: 9th Floor, Federal Building, Fban 957, 167 N. ~'.?. :.., St ., :-!ernphi s , ~
TRIAL DATE: T W TH F 19 ...::::......L
TRI AL TINE: I , .:;v~, --~ ~·-=-!--I A • M • , (l'....l:1..<
PLACE : 9th Floor , Federal Building, Courtrocrn 3, 167 !l. ~.ai.r1. St., Merrphis, ~•
'ltus is t o advise you that the al::ove has been set oy Judge Horton on the date and
tirre specified ab::>ve, for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to the a.oove
styled case. The att orneys woo will try the case shall be present a t all conforer.ces .
Judge Horton will preside.
_ ACE-IDA OF t-1.ATIE3.5 ro BE DISCCSSW AT sr.rr-.:s A.\1)/OR
PRETRIAL (X)NFERENCE WITH Jl;DQ: ODELL l-DRTDN
1) What is the nature of the case?
2) What are the facts?
-3) What are the contentions of the parties?
a) plaintiff (s)
b) defendant ( s)
4) Jurisdictional or venue issues
5) Status of Discovery (~leted?) if not, schedule for CO!Il)letion.
6) May the entire case to be tried before the U.S . Magistrate pursuant
to recent amendn:ents to 18 U.S.C. §636? •
7) Exchange of list of witnesses which each party will call.
8) Exchange of list of witnesses which each party ~ call (which may be
relied upon by ocher parties witrouc need of separate subpoena).
9) Pre-marki.~g, by Clerk of Court, of pr opc · : d exhibits, reservi..~g
obj ections thereto (beginning with orig:...-.3. l plaintiff.)
___ 10) Stipulations as co- autrenticity of any o: pre-marked exhibits?
11) Pretrial tmtions to be ruled upon? ---
---
---
---
12) Evidentia:ry issues which may be disposed of?
~3) Order of presentation and/or proof t o be c.ecided?
· 14) MY arrenclD:ents of pleadings?
15) ·Dismissal and/or abandonmmt of Jn.Y counts L, Cocplai..,c (or defenses
in An~), etc.?
___ 16) Any issues as co appropriateness of parties, j o :Lider, etc . ?
___ 17) (If jury trial dar.anded) may jury be waived?
18) Is this a case where the issue(s) of liability should be tried
--- separately from the issues of damages? Should the damages aspect
be referred to t~ United States Magistrate?
--- 19) Ph::>tographs, Derronscrative items.
___ 20) May the arounc of damages (or sorre elellalt s thereof) be stipulated?
,
21) ~.ay other el.eirents of the case Co:- faci:ual c-at:cers) be st:i;,ulated?
22) Have all depositions , L.~terrogat:ories, adr:1i ssior.s, e : c., ?~8?csec : J
be used in the trial, been filed wi.ch ere Clerk? I f not, sc~dule of
filing?
23) Are there Jrr/ objections to admissibility of all , or portions of
depositions, interrogatories , admissions , etc. ? If so, these should
be argued ac pretrial confere..T"lce, i£ possible .
24) Designation of parts and depositions, incerrogator~s, etc., for
use at trial? •
25) Exchange of rumes and qualifications of e.J<pertS expected to be used.
26) Any witness problems (availability at certain tine, out-of-tc,,.,,n, etc.).
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38}
39)
Dµcussion of language (for Pretrial Order of Mer!Drandun) for a brief
statemmc, or outline, of the case .
Discussion ( for Pretrial Order or Meimrandun) of formtlacion of the
contested issues in ere case.
Tilmly filing of Trial ~an.dun.
(I.: j ury crial) voir dire co be conduct:d by attorneys.
(If jury trial) Any special requests , k:-.:::;wn at chis stage of case,
for instructions to jury at conclusion c : the trial.
(If jury trial) Estimated nunber of prospective jurors needed.
(If j ury trial) Length of closing argurenc ( if different from usual
length generally established by Court) .
. .;p?r oximate length of trial.
Will case be ready for crial on c.ace sec?
Special problems, if any.
Settlemmt (conference? All camage evi.c:.e.nce exchanged? Serious
negotiations had? Possibility of settle.-:-enc ~i.~':7ouc t::-i al ?)
(In the event this case is not t he f irst case sec on the trial date)
~.ay chis case be held from day to day?
Otrer matters
For a discussion of Pre-Trial Conference and a rodified form for a Pre-Trial
Order, see 23 Federal Rules Decisions 129-138.
ceunsel are further directed to confer prior to the Pre-Trial Ccnference. The
p.u:pose of ~s pre;iminary ccxiference cet:wee1: ~l is to exchange Lrlfomati cn
as to the ultun.ate issues of law and fact, ellnu.nat1ng unnecessary or ; rrel evarn:
issues that may ~ar in the pleadings or d iscovery; to arrive at all ~ssibl e
stip.ilaticns and exchange dccunents which will be offered in evidence ac ~i....e :.:-:.=-1. .
After the P~ial Caiference the Court will enter a joint Pre-Trial Order which
shall be ca1trollirq at the Trial. Therefore, prior to the Pre-iI'rial Conferer-.::e,
Counsel shalld prepare a joint Pre-'l'rial Order. •
If an Attorney fails to appear at the Pre-Trial Ca1ference or to canply with tt.e
directicns set forth herein, an ex parte hearing !MY be held am. ju:igment of dis
missal or default or other appropri ate judgrrent entere:i. See ~e 7, 11, 16 and
26, Federal ail.es of Civil Pro:edure.
cc: J'l.Xige Horta'\
Court.roan Oep.ity
JUIY Deputy
Court Feporter
Sincerely yours,
J. Franklin Peid, Clerk
f i
s
M1w.-H1a1 a11oa
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Wl8TltflN DISTfllCT OP' TINNltSSltl
OP'P'ICI OP' THE CLlflK
J . P'flANKLIN IIEID. CLIIIK
•01 - ■at -1111
Mr. Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Mr. D1Army Bailey
Attorneys at Law
Suite 901 - Tenoke Bldg.
Memphis, TN 38103
Mr. Steven L. Winter
2030 - 10 Columbus Cr.
New York, N.Y. 10019
Mr. Henry L. Klein
Attorney at Law
770 Estate Pl.
Memphis, TN 38119
Mr. Arthur Shea •
Assistant City Attorney
Room 314- 125 N. Mid-America Mall
Memphis, TN 38103
2 1 AUG 1987
Mr . Clyde Murphy
Attorney at Law
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
New York, N. Y. 10013
JACKSON aeao2
ltlllOtNT OU•UTY
101-,17-1111
RE: 75-145 -H CLEAMTEE GARNER, ET AL -v- MEMPHIS POLICE DEPT. ET AL
RESETTING
STATUS CONFERENCE L.J
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENC~ ,,...-,- /
DATE: M T W THC..V- Cd;;;T; / ::SI
TIME: _ 3 / '/Cl A.M.,@
PLACE: 9th Floor, Federal Building, JoaTI 9 5 7, 16 7 ~l. Ma in St. , Merlplis, 'ffi
TRIAL DATE:
TRIAL TIME:
T W TH F
/ f ...30 4'.M.,@ JURY
PLACE: 9th Floor, Federal Building, Courtrocm 3, 167 ?l. Main St., MenJ?his, 'l?-l
nus is to advise you that the aoove has been set by Judge Horton on the date and
tine specified above, for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to the aoove
styled case. 'l'1e attorneys woo will try the case shall be present at all conf(?rences.
Judge lt:>rton will preside.
---
---
---
---
2) wr-.at are tra facts?
-3) w'hat are tr. contentions of t~ parties?
a) ? l.a.:int iff ( s)
b) deft:ndant(s)
4) Jurisdiction.al or venU1 issuas
5) Status o~ Discovuy (caq,leted?) if not, schec:ula for coapletion.
6) May tha entire ca.sa to be tried before dw U.S. Mai15t:rata pursuant
to recent ai:nendm!nts to 18 U.S.C. §636? • •
7) E_?<Cr-.a:nge of list of 'Wi.t:'l.esses which ea.ch ?~ ~ll call. ,
t
8) Exchange of list of \.1it:riasses which each par,:y E!I call (whlch ~ be
:-e lied upon by other pani.es \,:i~:-ouc r.eed of se?a:-ate subpoena) .
9) P=e-:::a:rki.,g, by Cl.erk of Co~, o: pr~~sed ex.-.i.':>its , reser.r.ng
objecti,orl.s t ~eto (':,egi."'lni..ig ...,i.:~ or:.f :...-.a.l ? '!.a.i..-itiff.)
10) St:ipulations as ta .nir..'-s\ticicy of my c : ?re--.,,..kad exhibits?
11) ?ret:rul :ctions to be ruled upon?
12) Evi::ent:.ary issues which -:.y be c.sposed of?
13) Order of presentation and/or ?roof :o :e c.ecici:c?
-- 14) Any aa:endcmnts of pleadings?
1.5) ·Dismissal md/or abandoriimnt of my co\:'\:s i."l ~1.a.i."lt (or c.efenses
--- in Aaswer), ~tc.?
__ 16)
__ 17)
__ 18)
MtY isS'UIII as to appropriat~ss of ?arties, joi...,du, etc. 7 .
(If jury t:rial demanced) QZf j,zy be \."UVed?
Is this a case ~• tha issue(s) of liabilii:: should be t:ried
separately from tha issues of dacages? 51-ou.l.ci :ha dacages aspect
be referred to tha thitad States Magist=ate?
___ 19) Ph::>tographs, Dertcnst:rative items.
___ 20) ?-'.ay the ..,.c\Jnt of dair.ages (or so:m elet?"ents :.:-:=eof) be stipulated?
21) ~.ay ot:-er elemmts of t:a case (or fac~.21 =atters) c:e st:?~a:ed?
22) Have all depositions, interrogatc:-ies , ac:::.ssicns, etc . , ?ro?osed '"o
be. used in th! trial, been fi l ed Wi~h :'.~ Cl.erk? If :-.ct sc~d-.lle-0 ;
ill~? • -
23) Are there m, objections to ad::issibil~cy cf all, c: ?or:i~~ of
depositions, interrogatories, ac:m.ssiO':'I~, etc.? 1£ so, c..~se s'rould
be argued at pretrial conference'. if ?OSsib].e.
24) Designation of parts and depositions, interrogatories, etc. , for
UH &t a-i&l? . . .
25) Exchange of nans and qual.ific.ations of experts ~cted to be \!.S~d.
26) Any witness problems (availability at cenain ti.Im, out-of-town, etc. ).
27) Discussion of language (for Pretrial Ordu of ~randun) for a br:.ef
statl!m!nt, or outline, of tm case.
28) Discussion (for Pretrial Order or Mem:lrandun) of for.Illlati.cn of the
contested issues in th! case.
29) Tim!ly filing of Trial Y.em::rrandun.
30) (If jury trial) voir ·dire to be conduc:ed by attorneys .
31) (If jury t=ial) Any special :-eques:s , 'mcrw.1 at th::.s stage of case ,
for ~a-uctions _to jury at concl \.:.S :.:n o: d~ tri al.
32) (If jury t=ial) Estimated nu:iber of :;:-ospective jurors needed.
33) (lf jury trial) Length of closi..'"lg a:-~t ( if di:ferent f:rcxn usual
len~h generally est.ablisred by Cou:-:).
34) Approximate length of trial.
35) Will case be rudy for trial on c.ace set?
·36) • Special problas. if my.-
37) ...5ettlem!nt· (confe.r~ce? All damage ev:.de.."\ce e..xc:-.anged? Serious
negotiations had? Possibility of sett:lecent ,:,.:ic:-cuc trial?).
38) (In tm event this case is not t~ f:.=st case set on t:-e trial c.ace)
May this case be h!ld frcm day to cay?
39) Ot:her matters
Fc,r a discussion of Pre-Trial Conference and a rodi.:ied form for a Pre-Trial
0:-dar. see 23 Federal Rules Decisions 129-138.
Counsel are further directed to confer prior to the Pre-Trial
Conference. The purpose of this preliminary conference between
Counsel is to exchange information as to the ultimate issues of law
and fact, eliminating unnecessary or irrelevant issues that may
appear in the pleadings or discovery; to arrive at all possible
stipulations and exchange documents which will be offered in
evidence at the Trial.
After the Pre-Trial Conference the Court will enter a joint Pre
Trial Order which shall be controlling at the Trial. Therefore,
prior totfle Pre-Trial Conference, Counsel should prepare a joint
Pre-Trial Order.
If an Attorney fails to appear at the Pre-Trial Conference or to
comply with the directions set forth herein, an ex parte hearing
may be held and judgment of dismissal or default or other appro
priate judgment entered. See Rule 7, 11, 16 and 26, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
cc: Judge Horton
Courtroom Deputy
Jury Deputy
Court Reporter
Sincerely,
J. Franklin Reid, Clerk ~
Deputy Clerk
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,
Plainti1'1',
v. No. C-75-145-H
MEMPHIS POLICE
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS
AND DISMISSING CASE
This case is presently before the court on remand from the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471
U.S. l, 105 s.ct. 1 694, 85 L.Ed.2d l (1985), affirming t he Si xth
Ci rcuit Court of Appeals' decis i o n in Garner v. Memphi s Pol i ce
Dept., 710 F,2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983). 1 Plainti ff has filed a
motion for partial summary judg111ent as to the liability of the two
remaini ng defendants in this case , the City of Memphis and the
Memphis Police Department. Defendants oppose the motion and, by
g upple ~~ntal ~espo~se , argu~ that the sixth Circuit's subsequent
decision in Carter v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn., 850 F.2d 1119
(6th Cir. 1988) (en bane) (cert. denied, 488 u.s. 1010, 109 s.ct. 79 5
( 1989)), requires that judgment be entered for defendants, and that
the case be dismissed. This court agrees.
1This decisi on is referred to as the Garne r II. Garner v.
City of Memphis, 600 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1972) is referred to as
Garner I.
,
The facts of this case have been clearly set out in the
previous decisions by the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals and this court. Accordingly, the court will not repeat
them. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning at this point that the
relevant facts concerning the shooting in this case and in the
carter case are strikingly similar, thereby lending additional
support for this decision.
In analyzing the issue of defendants' liability, the court
begins with the Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v . Garner,
supra. There the Court stated that
We wish to make clear what our holding means
in the context of this case .. . we hold that the
statute is invalid insofar as it purported to
give Hymon the authority to act as he did. As
for the policy of the Police Department, the
absence of any discussion of this issue by the
courts below, and the uncertain state of the
record, preclude any consideration of its
validity.
471 U.S. at 23.
Based on the above and the Carter decision, the court looks
upon the panel decision in Garner II with some hesitancy where the
Court stated that "there is not good faith immunity for
municipalities under§ 1983 . " 710 F.2d at 248 . To the contrary,
the Court in Carter stated that
in applying the Chevron Oil analysis in this
case, we conclude that Garner II and Tennessee
v. Garner should not have been retroactively
applied to the City of Chattanooga. On that
basis, the defendant City would be entitled to
judgment as a matter of law ... He [the Judge)
should have granted judgment as a matter of
law to the City because it was not at the time
following a clearly established unlawful or
unconstitutional policy.
850 F.2d at 1137.
2
Upon considerable reflection, the court can find no basis upon
which to distinguish the Carter decision from this case and the
issue presently before court. It seems the Carter decision in
effect overturned that part of the Garner II decision, holding that
municipalities do not have a defense to a§ 1983 claim based on
their reliance on a policy or course of conduct previously
determined to be within constitutional limits.
For the reasons stated in this opinion and in carter v. City
of Chattanooga, Tenn., 850 F,2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1988) (en bane) (cert.
denied, 488 u.s. 1010, 109 s.ct. 795 (1989)), the court hereby
DENIES plaintiff's motion for partial swnmary judgment. For the
same reasons, the court enters su.mmary judgment for the remaining
defendants, the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department.
This case is therefore DISMISSED and closed.
It is so ORDERED this the
3
day of June, 1992.
OD~LL HORTO, CHIEF JUDGE
UNll~ED ~TATES DISTRICT COURT
FAX: (90 I ) 575-8717
August 20, 1992
Mr. Julius Chambers
Attorney at Law
Director- Counsel
W ALTER L EE BAD...EY, J R.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUITE 800, ONE MEMPHIS PLACE
200 JEFFERSON A VENUE
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103-2340
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson st .
16th Fl oor
New York, NY 10013
RE: Garner v. Memphis Po lice Department , et a l
Dear Julius:
OFFICE: (90 I) 575-8702
The United States District Court recently rendered its opi nion on
the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment which had been pending
for some time in the above styled cause. Unfortunately, the court
denied the plaintiff's motion, and granted summary judgment to the
defendants. I have enclosed a copy of that order for your easy
reference. I have filed a notice of appeal of this order and am
contemplating the arguments .
Encl osed you will find a copy of a memorandum of law written by my
colleague, Anne Gullick, who shares office space with me. The
memorandum i s not an exhaustive treatment of the issues, but,
rather, is a rough outline of possible arguments to be made. I
believe the appeal may have merit even in the face of carter v.
City of Chattanooga, and I am prepared to go forward.
I am particularly interested in having Ms. Gullick involved on the
appeal. As you can see from the enclosed resume', she is a
graduate of the University of Mississippi school of law with four
and one half years experience as a law clerk to the United states
District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Southern
Di vision. Accordingly, she has extensive legal research and
writing training.
My inquiry of you is your organization's willingness to continue
underwriting this litigation and your contemplated involvement in
this third appeal . We have been so successful in the past at the
Sixth Circuit, and I see every reason for us to continue to be.
Mr. Chambers
Re: Garner v . Memphis Police Dept .
Date: August 20, 1992
Page 2 of 2
After your review of the enclosed documents, I would appreciate
your prompt reply .
Thank you for your time and consideration.
.,
I
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
CLEAMTEE GARNER, Father and
next-or-kin ot EDWARD EUGENE
GARNER, a deceased Minor,
Plaintirt,
v. No. C-75-145-H
MEMPHIS
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS
AND DISMISSING CASE
This case is presently before the court on remand from the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471
U.S. 1, 105 s.ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), affirming the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Garner v. Memphis Police
Dept., 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983) . 1 Plaintiff has filed a
motion for partial summary judgment as to the liability of the two
remaining defendants in this case, the City of Memphis and the
Memphis Police Department. Defendants oppose the motion and, by
supplemental response, argue that the Sixth Circuit's subsequent
decision in carter v. City of Chattanooga. Tenn,, 850 F.2d 1119
(6th Cir. 1988) (en bane ) (cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1010, 109 s.ct. 795
(1989)), requires that judgment be entered for defendants, and that
the case be dismissed. This court agrees.
1This decision is referred to as the Garner II. Garner v.
City of Memphis, 600 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1972) is referred to as
Garner I.
The facts of this case have been clearly set out in the
previous decisions by the Supreme Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals and this court. Accordingly, the court will not repeat
them. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning at this point that the
relevant facts concerning the shooting in this case and in the
Carter case are strikingly similar, thereby lending additional
support for this decision.
In analyzing the issue of defendants' liability, the court
begins with the Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner,
supra. There the Court stated that
We wish to make clear what our holding means
in the context of this case ... We hold that the
statute is invalid insofar as it purported to
give Hymon the authority to act as he did. As
for the policy of the Police Department, the
absence of any discussion of this issue by the
courts below, and the uncertain state of the
record, preclude any consideration of its
validity.
471 o.s. at 23.
Based on the above and the Carter decision, the court looks
upon the panel decision in Garner II with some hesitancy where the
Court stated that "there is not good faith immunity for
municipalities under§ 1983. 11 710 F.2d at 248. To the contrary,
the Court in carter stated that
in applying the Chevron Oil analysis in this
case, we conclude that Garner II and Tennessee
v. Garner should not have been retroactively
applied to the City of Chattanooga. On that
basis, the defendant City would be entitled to
judgment as a matter of law ... He [the Judge]
should have granted judgment as a matter of
law to the City because it was not at the time
following a clearly established unlawful or
unconstitutional policy.
850 F.2d at 1137.
2
Upon considerable reflection, the court can find no basis upon
which to distinguish the carter decision from this case and the
issue presently be!ore court. It seems the Carter decision in
e!tect overturned that part ot the Garner II decision, holding that
municipalities do not have a defense to at 1983 claim based on
their reliance on a policy or course of conduct previously
determined to be within constitutional limits.
For the reasons stated in this opinion and in Carter v. City
of Chattanooga. Tenn., 850 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1988) (fill bane) (cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 1010, 109 s.ct. 795 (1989)), the court hereby
DENIES plaintiff's motion for partial sUllllllary judgment. For the
same reasons, the court enters summary judgment for the remaining
defendants, the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department.
This case is therefore DISMISSED and closed.
It is so ORDERED this the
3
day of June, 1992.
ooiLL HORTO, CHIEF JUDGE
UN::M'ED f?TATES DISTRICT COURT
~
EDUCATION:
ACTIVITIES
AND HONORS:
WORK EXPERIENCE:
INTERESTS:
REFERENCES:
.ANNE BROWNLEE GULLICK
(601)867-6086(Home)
(601)374-2807(Work)
Juris Doctor, May 1987
University of Mississippi School of Law
University, MS 38677
G.P.A.: 2.96. Class Rank: Top 1/3
B.A. and B.S. in Education, May 1982
Blue Mountain College
Blue Mountain, MS 38610
G.P.A. 3.88
Majors: History and English
Minor: Psychology
Tutor in Adult Literacy Program in Gulfport,
Biloxi Little Theatre, University of
Mississippi Mock Trial Team, Moot Court Board,
Women's Law Caucus, American Inns of Court,
Phi Delta Phi, Law School Recruiting, Election
Conunission, Honor Council Representative
Law Clerk (June 1988 - present)
United States District Court, Southern District of
Mississippi
Hon. Walter J. Gex, III
P.O. Box 227, Biloxi, MS 39533 (601) 374-2807
Duties: Managing regular civil and criminal docket
Law Clerk (June 1987 - June 1988)
United States District Court, Southern District of
Mississippi
Hon. John M. Roper and Hon. Walter J. Gex, III
P. 0. Box 1164, Biloxi, MS 39533 (601) 432-8612
Duties: Managing asbestos docket
Law Clerk (May 1985 - March 1987)
Mitchell, Voge, Beasley, and Corban
P.O. Box 29
Tupelo, MS 38802 (601) 842-4231
Duties: Legal research
Office Clerk (May 1984 - August 1984)
Financial Aid Office, University of Missi ssippi
University, MS 38677
Duties: Clerical
High School Teacher (August 1982 - May 1984)
Calvary Baptist Academy
9333 Linwood Ave.
Shreveport, LA 71106
Duties: Taught high school English and history
Reading, sports, theatre, movies
See attachment.
REFERENCE_ . Hon. Walter J. Gex, III
United States District Judge
P. 0. Box 227
Biloxi, MS 39533
(601)374-2807
Hon. John H. Roper
United States Magistrate
P.O. Box 1164
Biloxi, MS 39533
(601)432-8612
Hon. Stephen R. Graben
Assistant United States Attorney
P.O. Box 1417
Biloxi, MS 39533
(601)432-5521
14: 40 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ~ TDl<ES
ANNE BRO'WNLEE GULLICK
200 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 800
Memphis , T•nnessee 38103-·2340
Office: (9'01) 575-870)
Fax : ( 9 o 1 ) 5 ni •-s 7 1 7
Fi\CEIIMILE
001
TO : ~ ,i;; Chambfu· li
FAX# : 212-i26-7592
--------,-------
m:i.~~E: Septe1ober 29, 1992
FROM: Anne Brownlee Gul lick
-----,1--------------------
TO'fAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
:REMARKS
CON'FI1>1!:NTlALI~¥ l'i'O"rICl'J
'Ille lnformatlot\ c'111tal11ed In U1I, roc.;hnlJe ltlellllQge l11 h:t:oUy privileged sod coofillc11ial lororwetloo lnlcodcd only for the uoe of the
lndMdual ur rnU1y namcdlal,ovc. H the reader nf tbl~ mce.••~~ 1, 11nl the lnlcnd~ redplent, you are beteby t,C>t!Oe<I lb111 110)' disacounatloo,
dMrib11Cioo, or copy of tb1t1k l1:<~py I, »triclly prublbltcd, Iryuu ha,•c 1·ccclvcd tbh t,·tooopy In cr·or, plw•• notify ua lm111cd!a1cly by lclcpl1011e and
h:tu ru the urlalual 111~1<~bjte n '" ul the ubuvc utl\Jrl!'t• vi~ lh• \ ;. S. J'v""l Scrvk-4:,
SEP 29 ' : 2 15:34 901 575 8717 PAGE . 001
•.
PHONE IJO l •&715•8'102
,..AX OOl•IS')'IS-&717
September 29 1992
Mr . Julius Clelmbers
Attorney at etw
nir ector-Cou ~1el
14: 41 BAILEY BAILEY & ::TOl<ES
ANNE BailOWl"ILEE OlJL.L.IC:t<
AfTC•ltHSY AT I.AW
•ON~ MEMPHIS PL.AC:I
llOO Jl:P'P"jii:RIJON A.VI., •u11 •• •06
M•M .. HIS, Tl .. :sa,o~-a.:t,•o
NAACP Legal 1 efense Fund
99 Hudson St
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
RE: Ga ner v. Memphis !P•~lloe Department, ,.~t Ill
Dear Mr, Cha hers:
002
ALO() UCS:N•so
IN Ml••tllfll .... l
I apologize 'n advance, but I must ask that you sub.stitute the
memo faxed t :Ls afternoon at 2: ,io Memphis timn and dated August
20, 1992 tort.hat sent to you earlier. This :Laxer dated
memorandum w :;; the one intended for ectrlier transmission. Please
excuse the i convenience .
Sincerely,
Anne Brownle Gullick
SEP 29 ': 2 15: 34 90 1 575 8717 PAGE.002
15:48 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ~ TOl<ES
ANNE BRO.,..VNLEE (}ULLJCI~
200 Jefferson Ave., Ste. aoo ·
Memphis, Tennessee J8103-2J10
Office : (901 ) 5 '75-8701)
Fax: (9 01 ) 57r 8 717
FllCSIMILE
001
TO: Mr. Julius Chambers
I
FA>C #: 212-226-7592 DA.'i'J:!<; September 28, 1992
FllOM: ~ Brown l~~ GY 111 cl'
'I'O':'AL NUMBER !oF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 6
HEMARKS
I
A; lp;1.cd t:OPy of the follow i ng racisimi le t,ransmission
fo i , 0 \1 5 bY United State:; Nail.
-
CON.PIDE'~TIALITY
'll,e l11fon"etlo11 conulutd In d,h (oCAlutlJ~ '""'"~te h 1~11:Jy pri-'~<\\•'<
lodMdual or collty named above. Jr tbc reader or tltlt 111Mut1! It ~ot the lnte11
diitributl(ln, or tor>· of thl, dcwpy b 1hirtly pruhibitcd. Ir you l ,avc 11:cch·cd lbll
return the <•rl~lnal 11,cuai;e o a at the above o(ldre,~ ,1ft the , ,, S , 1'081111 $~.rvlee ,
SEP 28 ':2 16:41
d,~M~
/ l Q~ --/4 I le
W I G/,t;.._ /'\.LO /l_p
~.9
•ocS r,untld,011l"1 hfor,:11atlon lutcncfcd onlr for lhc u,o or tlto
d,l(! recipient, you art hertby bOtlfied lbllt kb)' dlstcl.1llna1lon,
lcl<xoP) In cr:or, p,cur nollfy u1 lmml.'dlattly by t~c11bo1.1t aucl
901 5 75 8717 PAGE.001
X
15:48 BAILEY BAILEY & : TOl(ES
ANNE IIIROVll'NLl!E Ouf..1-., cH
A T T01u,sv AT LA~I
002
p'40N 0 01 •&7&••702
Fl<X 00t-lS'71J-1171'7
ONIS Mll:P,IPHI • PU,C:•
aoo Jl:F'f"IRS0 N AVE., 8UITI 8 0 0
MIM,.Ht•. TN aa1"•2a40
ALSO UCBN■II!:()
IN Ml881881PPI
C
September 28 1 1992
Mr. Julius Chambers
Attorney at ltaw
Dir ector-codnsel
NAACP Lega l !Defe nse Fund
99 Hudson Stj.
16th Floor .J
New York, N~ 10013
RE:
Dear Mr .
GJrner v . Memphis l 'olioe oo;partmont, et a.1
Chambers:
I
I have not h+d the pleasure ot maxing your aoqua;Lnta11ce, but I have
heard many gp::>d t h ings about you from Walter l:la :i. ley. It is at his
suggestion tp.a.t I write you this letter concerning the above- styled
ar:-peal.
As you will r •::call from Walter' H lette:r of . :'\.U<;; ue;t 20, 1992, he has
asked that 1 1 i1ssist i n t he preparation of the bri ef :.n this appea.l.
As you can t13.ll from the resume' enclosed witt that l etter, I have
had some expe.rience with the :Eecteral ::ourt ,mo \dth legal writing.
Therefore, ~ have agreed to aid in ~he prsp8rntion of the brief
pending you~ approval.
I
A short memo! was included with Walter's let.ter which outlined the
major point3 of contention in this appeal B1:-ief ly, it appears
that t he d ist r i ct court may have confused rett'oactive application
of a decisiam with the traditional immuni :y d(~fen13es in Section
1983 cases. 1 J.t is my argument that the1 Supram1:: Court's decision in
Tennessee vl Garner, while arguably not rc~t:roact.ive to other
decisions, Jas intended by the Supre!me Co\1rt and u panel of the
Sixth circui~ to be applied retroacti~el y t, the facts at bar. If
so, then the only remaining jssue .Ls qu~l if j_ed or good faith
imrouni ty. t;.nce the Sixth Circuit has previously held in this
liti gat i on tat the City of Memphis c:a.nnot as:iert such a defense,
then the "la of the case" precludes any rear;1ument . It remains,
therefore, for the district court to 1;impl1 a,pl y Monell .
SEP 28 ':2 16:42 9 01 5 75 8 7 17 PAGE. OO2
I
09/28/ g2 15:49
TO: us Chambers
RE: Ga rnei · . City of Memphis
DATE: Septe ber 28 1 1992
Page 2 of 2
BA I LEY BA I LEY & n□l<ES 003
Walter has r c:eived what the Sixth circ:uit tarms its "Case Opening"
letter. It G!ts out numerous de;1dline1!3, and I hE1Ve E:nclosed a copy
for your re E:rence . As you cc1n tel:., thE! t i~1e limits approach
rapidly. Fo· this reason, I am inqui:cing on Walter's: behalf as to
your thought on this appeal, ycur po~sible participation, and any
possible fun ing of the project.
Walter and } will follow tM.s letter with a c:onf(~rence call on
Wednesday aJternoon at 2:00 p . m. cer..tral, 3:00 p.~n. Eastern to
discuss the !issues. If thi~ time is not conve.nient, please have
your secreta!ry call me at the number above . Ke w:.11 be glad to
reschedule .
Thank you fo1r your attention and assistanc 3 ·with this matter. r
look forward! to working with you.
I
Sincerely, I
~~~-tl~~~-
Anne Brownle Gullick
P.nclosure
SEP 28 ':2 16:42 901 575 8717 PAGE.0O3
15: 49 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ~ TOl<ES
UNITED STATES 00\JltT OF APPEAJ.,S
SJX'l'H OIROUI I
004
LEO!':Ant> GREEN
01,linK
638 U,S, l'OST OFFICE & C:OUlt'l' llOUSI;; 13UU ,DJNG
CINCJNNATI, OHIO 462):~•B088
TRl.l~J>UONll
(Ii I 3) 081•i063
n:s os4.zooa
Sept.ember 22,. 1992
/4. Walter~ Bailey Jr., Esq.
200 Jefferson ,
Su;i.te 800 One lMemph:Ls Place
Memphis, TN 3,8103
I
I
RE. Case l'fo. 92""6196
GarneJ.t vs. MempM.s Poli~e Dept
Distr~ct Court No. 75-00145
We have joday docketed the a.Love- styli~ cas,~ as m.unber 92-6196
in this Court.: This case nUJlil.>er mui:;t appear on all documemts related to this
case which a~ submitted to the Court. Read the followin~, letter carefully.
Each paragrap~ identifies a respcns.:..bilit~r that uust be men;. i.rnmediatcly.
Failw::e o~ the appellant to comply with any of ·thc~se 1•equ.irements by
the date established below will zesult in DISMIS:mL o:E the: case without
further not.icJ.
i
ADMITTANCE ~U!R.EMENTS FOR A'l'TORNEYS. 1~ttorne~rs m11st be admitted
to practice betfore this Court in order to enter nn iippearance or file any
documents. I~ ynu have never been admitted 1:o the bar of this Court,
conplete 'Lhe 'in::losed application fonn and returu i·: with your form of
appearance ( se~ paragraph below). 1:<equj re.ment~; for admission are set forth
in Section 4! of the Court's Interr1al Operating P~x,cedures.
APPEARANCE FOWJ, Even though an attorney has ~:ubr:u. tted a document
whlch indicate;s his name and address, all ,tttorm!ys who wish to represent any
pc:U·ty on app~l are also required to file the E!nc:.m:ed Fo1n for Appearance
of Counsel in ~:lch appeal in which they are involved. The Court will refuse
to file any d,ouument tendered by an attorney whci has not filed the form.
1he appellant appearance must be received jn tiu~. office by
10/6/92 . i
TRl'...NSCRIP1'. Ypu must complete Part I of the enc]ose~ purchase order
for transcriptJ whether or not you ar·e requil;lng cddttional transcript
ou appeal. T~e appellant is resp:>nsible fcir servin~r the various copies
of the purchas~ order upon the ap:;,ellee anc'. the c,ther pers::>11s and offices
indicated on th~~ form. If you ar,e orde.rin~· transcrlpt. from more than
one: cou.rt:. rePo~::.er, a transcript •:'.>rd.er fo:rni must be cc,mpl.e.ted for each
reporter. If Jt::-anscript is order,~d, the order mLst be: explicit, and
fir.ancial arra~Jernents, satisfactory to the: court reporter, must be
made at the ti l\!~ the order is pla,:!ed, Failure tc do ~:o may result in
dismissal of t ~ case. You are also required to not:ify the Court if
tr~nscript is lumecessary. Secti,:m 8 of tr.e Colll: t' ~i l nternal Operat.ing
Prcicedures contains additional information. If 1ou ha.ve any questions
concerning tra~mcript, you should ccntact c,ur Trensc:ript C:,ordinator at
our telephone number listed above. The appellant tJ:ar..scri:r,)t order form
SEP 28 ':2 16:43 901 575 8717 PAGE . 004
15:50 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ~ TOl<ES 005
mu.st be recei Ed in this office b y 10/6/9;~ .
PRE-ARGUMENT 'l'ATEMENT. 6th Cir. R. 18 di:'.:'•ects t 1at a pre-·argument
statement be iled by the appellant in all civil cases. For civll appeals,
t.ha appellant shall complete the enclosed fonn md stlbmit the original and
twQ cop:les to the Clerk's Office with serrlce effecte:'.i on all other parties.
The appellee E neither required not· autho.rized ;;.o respond to the pre-argument
statement. The. pre-argument statE!lnel'.'1t must be re,:::eived i.n this office by
10/6/92 • I
RULES AND PR ~:OURES. The Court's I.(:>Cal Rl.l Les ( R .tles) are printed in
several feder 1 rules publications . The o:iurt 1s Internal Operating Procedures
( IOP • s} can iJ found in the r.'ederal Local Court ~ules voltune of the Federal
Rules Servicei' published by Calla9han & Com.?any. Copi0:!s of the 1:<ules and rOP' s
are also avai able from this off1ce. 'l.'he most r ,;!Cent editions of these court
publications re: Rules, April 199.l and IIJP 's , ,June 1991,
Enclosures:
{vonn·~ Henderson
•::::0$e 3upervisor
Transcri*t. Purcha$e Order, rorm 6CA-3 :>
Pre- At9w~1e:nt Statement, Fonn 6CA-53
Form for ~.ppeara11ce of Courn;el, Fonn 5CA-68
Applicat on for AdIT'ission, rorm 6CA-:L4
cc:
Major Ca e: Processin9 EventH, Form 6CA-26
Mr. lien qr L. Klein
Mr. ArthlJlr Shea
SEP 28 ': 2 16 : 43 901 575 8717 PAGE.005 ---
15:50 BA I LEY BA I LEY g HOl<ES
~FICIAL COU.RT OF Al'PEI\LS CAl~r.tON Fl)R ~ - 6 19~~
CLEAM'l'EB GAR~R, Father and next-of-kin of EDWARD E JG:~NE
GARNER, a deceased minor
Plaintiff • Appellan1·
v.
MEMPIUS POLI~ DEPARTMt:N'l'; CITY CF MEMPHlS TENNDSS:~
Defendants - Appelle:!S
WYCTH CliANDLE~, Mayor of Memphis, JZ.~Y w. 1"UBBARD, D'.l'(•ctor
of Memphis Poll..::e; E, R. I-M-1.0N, Pollce Officer of the City
of Memphis
:)ef endants
~ _J-
"sE P 28 ' : 2 1 6: 43 ~-1-575 871 7
006
PAGE.006
ANNE BROWNLEE GULLICK
A TTORNEY AT LAW
ONE M E MPHIS PLAC E PHONE 901-575-8702
FAX 901-575-87 17 200 JEFFERSON AVE., SU ITE 800
MEMPHIS, TN 3810 3 -2340
October 5, 1992
Mr. Clyde Murphy
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson St ., 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
RE: Garner v. Memphis Police De pt., e t al
Dear Mr . Murphy :
ALSO L ICEN SED
I N M ISSISSIPPI
Please find enclosed copies of documents sent to the Sixth
Circuit on October 2, 1992 to be filed in the above- styled cause.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter I received today from the
Sixth Circuit establishing the briefing schedule. Please note
that the appellant's brief and designation of appendix is due
November 12, 1992 .
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to
contact me . I look forward to working with you on this project .
Sincerely,
~/4~~
Anne Brown l ee Gullick
Enclosures
INTERNAL USE ONLY
, 'UNITED STA ___ COU RT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CIVIL APPEAL PRE·ARGUMENT STATEMENT
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ATTACH AOOtTIONAI. P{6'S 11:: NECESSARY.
TITLE IN FULL: OISTRICT Wo c, +-
0
>-n
CLEAMTEE GARNER, Father and next - of- kin OATECOMP\.AINT OISTRICTCOURT
of EDWARD EUGENE. GARNER, a deceased minor FILED 4 18 '75 OOCl<ETNUMBER 75-0145
v.
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
92-6196
ATT0RNEY(S) FOR: NAME
APPELLANT:
!xl PLAINTIFF Walter Lee Bailey, Jr .
1 ) DEFENDANT
( ) OTHER (SPECIFY): Clyde Murphy
Anne Brownlee Gu llick
APPEL LEE:
( ) PLAINTIFF
(x) DEFENDANT Henry Klein
( ) OTHER (SPECIFY):
CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY
A. JURISDICTION
K , FEDERAi.. auesno"
' I 0IVEASITY
• OT~ER ,SP€CIFVI
I X FINAi. OEOSION OF
OISTIIICT COUl!f
I I &Nfl:11.0CUTOIIY OICISIIII
~ I.A9.£ AS OF AIGHT
I I •NTI:AI.OCUTOIIY OIIOEJI
CERTIFIED IY QSTIICT
,uOGl 1Sl'ECIFY!
I ' Oll<ER •Sl'ECIFVl
1. sr~ OF ""OCEEIJNGS
( I PIIE-TIIAI.
I I CURING l"RIAI,
?(- 1 AFTER 'RIAi,
1--------,,---,,..,.-------------1
DATE NOTICE OF l:SS 4 ~ L
APPEAL FILED / 7 ~ 2
IS THIS A
CROSS APPEAL? ~ YES
HAS THIS MATTER BEEN 8EF-ORE THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY'?
IF YES. STATE:
CASE NAME:
CITATION:
See Attachment #1
DOCKET NUMBER:
ADDRESS
'
200 J efferson Ave., Ste.
Memphis, TN 38103
99 Hudson St. , 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
200 Jefferson Ave., Ste .
Memphis , TN 38103
2110 One Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103
It. DlffllCT COURT DISPOSITION
l rv"' <:# Jt10Gll91TIOM>EII Al'l'E,\UO
' I 0EFAu1.r JUOGIIEIIT
1 1 0ISMISSAl.1 JUAISOICTlOII
1 1 OI.SM1SSA1.1 MEIIITS
I I JUOGIIIENT, COURT
0((1$1011
l I JU0CW91f /JUll\t
VOOICT
cX I SUMMAIIY JU0GW91f I I JUCGllfllf NOV
1 • OEClMATOIIY ,U0Glil911 l I 0IRECTI:D lttAOICT
1 1 0 TMEA 1Sl'fCIFVI
TELEPHONE
800 (901)575-8702
(212)219-1900
800 (901)575-8702
(901)525-1711
I I OMIAGES;
AMClUNTSOUGl<T· 12 C Q O Q c O O Q_
AMClUlfT( J CIWlrtD:
I I l:»:" 18): S ____ _
( I IMJUNCTIOlfS:
I l PAEUMIH.UY 011 I I "'RWMUII
I I GRAIITEO al I I 0EN1EI)
l=EDERAl STATUTES.
C. NATURE OF SUIT
TORTS CONTRACTS OTHER :
• cou u EAC( aou res
.. 0 IU 1HS
, , cc,...,oo, r,es
, , cc.,.,u,..onoNs , , i AEE001o1 or
I I C0NSU MEJI .. 0TECTIOlf
I I CO,VAtCJ,tf • I ?Art,.,,
CR ' I IQA0EM• RN
1 , ELECTIO"
, , E~ERGY
I • E~VIIIONMEII 141.
,,.Foo••r•""
1 1 1MMIGRAl10N
I I 1.48011
I I OS><•
1 1 SECURlllES
I I soc SECUAI r,
, I !Al
1C)M,A4',TV .. ,11n 1,1f
•~SAUL! OEF AlolArtCJI
•aoouc: ,_ . ._.,L: l'I,
IWAAA&N rv
I I • OM<UllY
MAjlll fl ME
I I 4A8tril,ln ()II
' I COMMEll(I ...
I I EM~QV WE)II
I ,,,SUMNC(
I I ~EGOT1A81,(
,,.srAu .. o, rs
1 I 4A81 1U TIOII l I FOIIF£lnJlllf1 .. _.. ,..
1 I UTY OISOUAUFICATIOII I I REM. P'IOl'fllTY
I I CU,SS .OCTIOII
! 1 COUNSEL FUS
0 TMEA 1SIECIFVl
I I SHAllfHOl.00 OIII_,.
l , l1WISFEII
et a l 6TH CIRCUIT .~UM8ER - -=9;...;;2::..-_6:::....e:..1.=-9..:::6 __ _
IAS~ ON YOUII P'IIESENT KNOW.:
0. GEMEJIAL
( 11 DOES THIS APPEAL INVOLVE A QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION? C YES xi NO
(2 ) WILL !'HE DETERMINATION OF THIS AP9EAI. TURN ON THE INTERPflETATION OR APPLJCATION OF A PAIITICUUII CASE OR STATUTE' ~ YES = NO
IF YES. PROVIOE:
CASENAME/STATIJTE:Carter v . City of Chattanooga, Tenn.
CITATION: 85O.f •. 2~ 1119 (6th Cir . 1988) OOCXETNUMBER. IFUNREPORTE0:
. ·-- • . -
(3) IS !'HERE ANY CASE NOW PENOiNG OR ABOUT TC> SE·BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WHICH:
(Al ARISES FROM SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CASE OR CONTROVERSY AS THIS APPEAL? C YES XJCNO
. (8) INVOLVES AN ISSUE THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. SIMILAR. OR RELATED TO AN ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL' ·= YES X: NO
IF YES. PROVIDE: .
CASE NAME:
CITATION. DOCKET NUMBER. IF UNREPORTED. COURT OR AGENCY.
(4) WILL THIS APPEAL INVOLVE A CONFLICT OF LAW WITHIN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT' :: YES ~NO AMONG CIRCUITS? = YES = NO
IF YES. EXPLAIN, BRIEFLY:
ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL. INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES:
I. Whether the lower court erred in relying upon Carter v. City of
Chattanooga, Tenn., 850 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir. 1988) in light of the
United States Supreme Court's ruling in James B. Beam Distilling Co.
v. Georgia, U. S . , 111 S.Ct. 2439 (1991).
A. Whether Carter was effectively overruled by the Beam decision .
B. If so, whether it was error for the district court to hold that the
immunity portion of t he decision in Garner v. Memphis Police Dept., et
al, 710 F . 2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983) had been overruled by Carter, supra.
II . Alternatively, whether Carter on its face overruled the immunity holding
in Garner v. Memphis Police Dept., 710 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983).
III. Whether the "law of the case" doctrine precludes relitigation of the
immunity issue under the rule announced in Petition of United States
Steel Corporation, 479 F.2d 489 (6th Cir . 1973) .
IV. Whether the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department had a
policy which led to the constitutional injury under Monell v. New York
City Dept. of Social Services, 436 F.2d 489 (6th Cir. 1973).
THIS IS CERTIFY THAT THIS CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMEN r 5. , : l wo, r WAS MAILED re fHE CLERK OF (HE IJ S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT ANO A COPY THE~E0~ 'it"VEC ON EACl'I PARTY OR fl'IEIR COUNSEL OF ?.ECORD THIS
_J,,,_ QL DAY OF ~ ------ ------· 19 q '.)_ ,
'tu~ !'>< o 1 1 ,A a.: Pe~ D. "
------ ~NAfURE ~\;,;SELJQ J LJ "'.
GARNER V. MEMPHIS POLICE DEPT., ET AL 92-6196
ATTACHMENT #1
1. Cleamtee Garner, Father and next- of-kin of Eugene Garner, a
a deceased minor v. memphis Police Department, City of Memphis,
Tennessee and Jay w. Hubbard and E. R. Hymon in their official
capacities, 600 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1979)
Docket Number - 77-1089
2. Cleamtee Garner v . Memphis Police Department, et al, 710 F.2d
240 (6th Cir. 1983)
Docket Number - 81-5605
PRE-ARGUMENT CONFERENCE REQUEST
Non- bindi~g mecia t io n ccnfe=ences are rcu:inely cc~
c~c~ed in s ome but not all civil a~~e~ls , ~~=s ua n: :o Six~~
C~ =cui ~ Rule 18 . In t~ese confe=ences , Ccu r~ ~ediation l a~~e= s
wor ~ with counsel ~o ex~lo=e ccss:01 _i =ies f e r se: =le~en:, ~o
clarify the issues on a~peal ;nd ~o ==~ to resol ve ~rocedura l
9rcblems t hat night cause delay .
If you ~hink such a c cn:erence could ce use:ul :~
=n~s c ase , you may reques~ one by ca lling o r ccnpleting ar.c
re~~rning ~he :arm below to:
Teresa R. Mack
Conference Attorneys' Office
U.S. Court of Appeals
527 U.S. Post Office &
Courthouse Bldg.
Cincinnati , Ohio 45202
Tel. C 513) 684-3881
Requests for such con:erences do r.o: re lie ve a~;e ::a~ ~s
of ~heir obligation to timely ccmply with all cour: [il:ns ~e
quirements.
PRE-ARGUMENT CONFERENCE REQUEST FORM
GARNER -'~'-~M~E~M~P~H~r~s.,;;i._~P~a~r~,.r~c~E.__D~E~P-T ....... , ........ E-T.._-A~I~,--
(Case Capt ion )
92 - 6196
Walter Lee BaiJey , ,Jr .
Name
Cleamtee Garner, plaintiff/appellar
Counsel Fer
UNITED STATES C O UR T OF .APPEALS
for the Sixth Circuit
FORM OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Case Title CLEAMTEE GARNER C Father a nd next -of -k in o f EDWARD EUGENE
GARNER, ·a deceased minor v . MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF
CotlfiMcffJ~peals Case Number __ 9_2_-_6_19_ 6 ___________ _
To: Leonard Green, Clerk
T his is to advise that you should enter my name and address on your docket
as counsel of record on behalf of
CLEAMTEE GARNER, Fa t her and next-of-kin of EDWARD EUGENE GARNER,
· who/which in this court "is/are a deceased minor
( ) Petitioner(s)
ti Appellant(s)
( ) Respondent(s)
( ) Appellee(s)
( ) Amicus(i) Curiae
( ) [ntervenor(s)
< <PLEASE TYPE THE FOLLOWING INFORMAT ION >>
Name _~A~n~n=-aae--=B=r~o~w~n=l =e=e'----"'G~u=1-1_i ~c~k._ _______________ _
Address 200 Jefferson Ave . , Suite 800
City /State __ M_e_m __ p_h_i_s_,_ T_N _____________ Zip 38103
T elephone(include area code) _( _9_0_1_)_5...,.7_5.._-..... s .... 7 ... o ... 2 ___________ _
Have you been admitted to the bar of the Sixth Circuit? ( )Yes (x)No
If yes, give the date of admission App ) i cat i oo f or a dro i s s i oo a t tacben .
N OTICE: T he Court requ ires that every attorney register an appearance on
this form in every case in which he or she intends to represent a party.
DocUJ:I1ents tendered by an attorney who h as not p roperly registered an ap pearance
will not be accepted for filing by t h is C o urt . Failure of appellant's counsel
to file an appearance will t herefore res u lt in dismissal of the ap peal.
I hereby acknowledge my responsibility !"or the t imely and expeditious
administration of this case in accordance with the rules and procedures of the
Court.
A copy of this fo rm is to be served on all opposing counsel.
6CA·68
5/ 91
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Sixth Circuit
FORM OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Case Title CI«EAMTEE GARNER C Father and next-of-kin of EDWARD EUGENE
GARNER, a deceased minor v. MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF
~§tlfl1ik5Appeals Case Number _.......,9...,2-...i-6 ..... l+9,...6------------
To: Leonard Green, Clerk
This is to advise that you should enter my name and address on your docket
as counsel of record on behalf of
CLEAMTEE GARNER, Father and next-of - kin of EDWARD EUGENE GARNER,
who/which in this court is/are a deceased minor
( ) Petitioner(s)
(x) Appellant(s)
( ) Respondent(s)
( ) Appellee(s)
( ) Amicus(i) Curiae
( ) [ntervenor(s)
<<PLEASE TYPE THE F'OLLOWINC INF'ORMATION> >
Name ____ w~a=l~t..;;._;;;_e=r___;;;L~e~e'--B_a_i_l_e~y_,'-J""-r_. _____________ _
Address __ __._2 .... a .. a._,..J .... e .... f._f"--=e ... c ... s .... a ..... o ......... A ... v....,_e ..... _,_,____.s....,u......_i ..._t.,_e__,,8'-"0"""0"------------
City /State _ _.M_....e__.m..._pl"-b ........ j .... s_,_,__.T...._N...__ _____________ Zip 3 8103
Telephone(incl ude area code) __ 9'-0'-'l"---5"-7-'--"-5_-..c,.8_7""""0_2 __________ _
Have you been admitted to the bar of the Sixth Circuit? ~)Yes ( )No
If yes, give the date of admission __ .:J_u_. n_e __ Q_! _ 1_9_7_1 _________ _
NOTICE: The Court requires that every attorney register an appearance on
this form in every case in which he or she intends to represent a party.
Documents tendered by an attorney who has not properly registered an appearance
will not be accepted for filing by this Court. Failure of appellant's counsel
to file an appearance will therefore result in dismissal of t he appeal.
I hereby acknowledge my responsibility for the timely and expeditious
administration of this case in accordance with the rules and procedures of the
Court.
s;gnatu,e '-/1Ja I "-<.u tYj,,. ~ ~•!) • . Date IO - d - '1 '.J._
A copy of this form is to be served on all opposing counsel.
6CA-68
5/ <J l
. .
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for- the Sixth Cir-cuit
FORM OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Case Title CLEAMTEE GARNER, Father and next-of-kin of EDWARD
GARNER! a ·deceased minor v. MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY
MEMPHI Court o Appeals Case Number _ ___..9...,2._-_,6,._l,._9....,,._6 _____________ _
To: Leonard Green, Clerk
This is to advise that you should enter my name and address on your docket
as counsel of record on behalf of
EUGENE
OF
CLEAMTEE GARNER, Father and aext-of-ki n of EDWARD EUGENE GARNER
• who/which in this court is/are
( ) Petitioner(s)
~Appellant(s)
( ) Respondent(s)
( ) Appellee(s)
( ) Amicus(i) Curiae
( ) fntervenor(s)
< <PLEASE TYPE THE F'OLLOWINC INFORMATION>>
Name Clyde Murphy
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Address 99 Hudson St,. J 6tb floor
City/State New York, NY Zip 10013
Telephone(incl ude area code) __._(-=2-=l-=2_,_)-=2:..:la.....9._---'l:..;9:;..0:;..0:;.._ __________ _
Have you been admitted to the bar of the Sixth Circuit? ( 19Yes ( )No
If yes, give the date of admission ___ J_u_n_e_ o_ f _ l_9_8_2 _________ _
NOTICE: The Court requires that every attorney register an appearance on
this form in every case in which he or she intends to represent a party.
Documents tendered by an attorney who has not properly registered an appearance
will not be accepted for filing by this Court. Failure of appellant's counsel
to file an appearance will therefore result in dismissal of the appeal.
I hereby acknowledge my responsibility for the timely and expeditious
administration of this case in accordance with the rules and procedures of the
Court.
s;gnatuco • ¥, ~ ~ ht, ~:'1/ nate /_D '4 ~
A copy of this form is to be served on all opposing counsel.
6CA-68
S/91
( ( ( C * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991-5'&9·!H9
READ INSTRUCTIONS ON BACK OF LAST PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING
TRANSCRIPT ORDER
District Court District Court Docket Number
ShortCaseTitle Garner v Memphis PoJice Dept et aJ
Date Notice of Appeal Filed by Clerk of District Court _R.......,.../_LJ. __ ~9~2-~8..-,./_7~,,,..L-9~2~----C~O~A_#"---_ _ 9_2_-_6_ 1_9_6 _______ _
PART I. (To be completed by party ordering transcript)
A. Complete one of the following:
0 Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes
l:!:r°Transcript is already on file in Clerk;s office
0 This is to order a transcript of the following proceedings: (check appropriate box)
Voir dire 0; Opening statement of plaintiff 0 defendant 0;
Closing argument of plaintiff 0 defendant 0; Opinion of court 0
Jury instructions 0; Sentencing 0; Bail hearing 0;
JUDGE MAGISTRATE HEARING DATE(S) COURT REPORTER
Pre-trial proceedings _ _______________________________ _
Testimony(specitywithesses) AJJ the testimony taken in tbe trial of
this cause has previously been transcribed and filed of
record Payment arrangement5 were made at that time
Other (specify) __________________________________ _
FAILURE TO SPECIFY IN ADEQUATE DETAIL THOSE PROCEEDINGS TO BE TRANSCRIBED, OR FAILURE
TO MAKE PROMPT SATISFACTORY FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSCRIPT, ARE GROUNDS
FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL.
B. This is to certify that satisfactory financial arrangements have been completed with the court reporter for payment of the cost
of the transcript. The method of payment will be:
0 Criminal Justice Act (Attach copy of CJA form 24)
0 Private funds
Date __ J_Q_/_J...,,_1_.9_7 _________ _
Print Name Walter Lee BK%.1d:JC Bai J ey , ,Jr Counsel for a ppe J J a o t
Address
PART II.
__ 2 ... 0 .... o .......... J-e ... f ....... f ..... e ... r ....... s ... o ... n_.__...,l\ ... v-e ____ s_._t ... e~ ........ 8 .... 0 .... 0 ........ ~ ...
8
.... m ...
1
+8 ... ~ .... 1 ... • .5.,.,-T ... N Telephone ( 9 O 1 ) 5 7 5 8 7 a 2
COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (To be completed by the Court Reporter and forwarded to
the Court of Appeals within 7 days after receipt).
Date transcript order
received
Estimated completion date; if not witt·,in 30 days of date financial
arrangements made, motion for extension to be made to Court of
Appeals
Estimated number
of pages
PART Ill.
0 Arrangem_ents for payment were made on __________ _
0 Arrangements for payment have not been made pursuant to FRAP 1 0(b)
Date Signature of Court Reporter Telephone
NOTIFICATION THAT TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT (To be completed by court
reporter on date of filing transcript in District Court and notification must be forwarded to Court of Appeals on
the same date)
This is to certify that the transcript has been completed and filed with the District Court today.
Actual Number of Pages _____ Actual Number of Volumes
Date Signature of Court Reporter
(
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
S I X T ! ! C lllCU IT
L£0N,\HD Grti::£N
C l. E RK
!i:18 ll.::;. l'OST Of'F ICI:: ,,. COU llTIIOll~ I·~ BI III.DIN C
C I NCI NNATI. 0 111 0 -1:;::o::. ;1u88
Walter Lee Bailey Jr ., Esq.
200 Jefferson
Suite. 800 One Memphis Place
Memphis, TN 38103
Henry L. Klein, Esq.
Apperson, Crump, Duzane & Maxwell
45 Second Street
Suite 2110 One Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103
Arthur Shea, Esq.
125 N. Main Street
Memphis, TN 38103
RE: 92-6196
September 30, 1992
Garner vs. Memphis Police Dept
District Court No. 75-00145
Dear Counsel :
TELr-:l't lONE
1r;1:1J ns-1-::u:;a
FT:3 us-1-::nr,a
The following schedule has been established for the filing of the
parties ' briefs and joint appendix :
APPELLANT'S
<BRIEF•·
APPELLEE'S
BRIEF
REPLY BRIEF
(Optional)
JOINT
APPENDIX
10 copies---blue covers---50 page l imit
Must si ned by COJ.UlSe]
Proof of service appen-d~ix--=-d_e_s-:--ig-na_t_i9h>
Mus 1 ed with e erk's office
by 11/12/92.
10 copies---red covers---50 page limit
Must be signed by counsel
Proof of service--- appendix designation
Must be filed with the Clerk's office
by 12/15/92 .
10 copies---gray covers---25 page limit
Must be signed by counsel
Proof of service
Must be filed with the Clerk's office
by 1/4/93 .
5 copies---white covers
Proof of service
Must be filed with the Clerk's office
by 1/11/~ .
Appellant•~ failure to file a brief or joint appendix when due may
lead to dismissal of the case. Appellee's failure to file a brief when
due may lead to the case being decided without representation of the
party's position.
~nclosed are samples of other necessary inclusions in the brief and joint
appendix designation addendum required by Sixth Circuit Rules lO(d) and ll(b),
and the disclosure of corporate affiliations required by Sixth Circuit Rule
25. Briefs and appendices not in compliance with the requirements will be
rejected and returned to counsel unfiled.
You may reach us by calling (513)684-2953, and we encourage you to do so
if you are uncertain of what is required.
Very truly yours,
-cl (J3M_f_ &ud-v--<0 .
(i~ ~Yvonne Henderson / ,Oa..,, "0
Case Supervisor / -
ROBERT W. RACK, JR.
SENIOR CONFERENCE ATTORNEY
DEBORAH N. GINOCCHIO
MARTHA H. GOOD
RODERICK M . MCFAULL
OFFICE OF THE CONFERENCE ATTORNEYS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
U.S. POST OFFICE & COURTHOUSE BUILDING
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202
October 8, 1992
Walter Lee Bailey, Jr., Esq .
200 Jefferson
Henry L. Klein, Esq.
Apperson, Crump
45 Second Street Ste. 800, 1 Memphis Place
Memphis, TN 38103 Ste. 21 10, 1 Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
RE: Garner v. Memphis Police Department, et al
CA No. 92-6196
PRE-ARGUMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE
Dear Counsel :
TELEPHONE
(513) 684-3881
FAX 684-3888
Pursuant to Local Rule 18, a pre-argument conference has been scheduled in
this case. For everyone's convenience, it will be conducted by TELEPHONE on OCTOBER
28, 1992 at 2:00 PM EASTERN TIME.
There are several purposes for this conference. One is to prevent unnecessary
motions or delay by attempting to resolve any procedural problems in the case. A second
is to identify and clarify the main issues being raised in the appeal. The third and primary
purpose is to explore any possibilities there may be for settlement. We will discuss in
considerable detail motivations and bases for terminating the appeal now. All counsel are
expected to come with authority to respond to settlement proposals that are consistent with
their clients' interests.
Counsel addressed are understood to be the lawyers with primary responsibility
for this case and are required to participate. If the purposes of the conference would be
accomplished more effectively with different or additional lawyers or if this date presents an
unavoidable conflict with a previously schedule court appearance, the undersigned must be
contacted immediately by telephone so that other arrangements can be made.
Roderick M. McFaull
by: Teresa R. Mack
cc: Arthur Shea, Esq.
Yvonne Henderson, Case Supervisor
The United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
About Pre-Argument Conferences
Pre-argument conferences are scheduled by the Court with counsel for all parties in many new
civil appeals. They are conducted by experienced and specially trained Court staff mediators
(conference attorneys) . Although significant attention may be given to procedural questions or problems
raised by counsel in a case, the primary purpose of the conference is to offer participants a confidential,
risk free opportunity to candidly evaluate their case with an informed neutral and to explore any and
all possibilities for voluntary disposition of the appeal.
Case Selection
Cases are selected for pre-argument conferences in several ways. Most are selected randomly
by the conference program from the pool of all fully counseled civil appeals, except prisoner and habeas
corpus and most agency cases such as tax, social security and NLRB cases. About a third of the
conferenced cases are scheduled at the request of one or more of the parties. Such requests are kept
confidential by the Court but need not be by the requesting party. Requests generally are accepted in
any fully counselled civil appeal. Finally, cases occasionally are referred by hearing panels for
mediation just before or after oral argument.
Conference Scheduling & Format
Nearly all pre-argument conferences are scheduled before briefing, by written notice from the
Court, two to three weeks in advance of the conference date. If all counsel live in the Cincinnati area,
the initial conference usually is held in person. Otherwise, most first conferences are telephone
conferences with the Court initiating the calls.
Most conferences begin with an inquiry as to any procedural questions or problems counsel
might have that could be resolved by agreement. These might include questions about the joint
appendix or the need for a specially tailored briefing schedule. The focus of discussion usually moves
fairly quickly to explication of the issues on appeal. The purpose of this discussion is not to decide the
case or reach conclusions about the issues, but to understand what the issues are and to evaluate the
risks on appeal. In many cases, a candid examination of the probabilities for various possible outcomes
of the appeal is helpful in reaching consensus on the settlement value of the case.
Initial conferences typically last an hour and sometimes longer. In about one-fourth of the cases,
the discussions go no further. In many cases, proposals are generated that require further review so
follow-up discussions may continue for days or weeks or longer. If negotiations continue productively
and all parties and the conference attorney agree, briefing may be postponed for a reasonable time until
negotiations are completed. Follow-up telephone or in-person conferences may be scheduled, with or
without clients, as necessary, to fully pursue all chances for negotiated settlements.
What Participants Can Expect
Generally, participants can expect the conference attorney to facilitate or lead a thoughtful and
sometimes detailed exploration of the merits of the case. The extent of his or her preparation will vary
with the amount of information available at the time of the conference. He/ she almost always will have
read the district court's opinion (if there is one) as well as cases cited in the pre-argument statement.
The conference attorney will inquire about settlement and will probe for each party's interests if they
are not immediately evident, often in private caucuses with each party. Every effort will be made to
generate offers and counter-offers until the parties either settle or know the case cannot be settled and
by how much it cannot be settled. Conferences are relatively informal. They are, however, official
proceedings of the Court.
What The Court Expects
The Court attempts to identify lead counsel for all parties wli~n scheduling conferences This
is not always possible so addressees are asked to advise the Court in advance of the conference when
mistakes are made. Considerable time and effort is expended in preparing for and participating in these
mediation conferences and attitudes and perceptions of panicipanrs frequently change in the process.
Experience shows that this time and ejfon is wasted and opponunities for settlement can be lost when
the lawyers attending the conference are not the lawyers on whose judgmeru the client will primarily
rely when making decisions. The perceived tactical advantage of sending to the conference an attorney
with limited knowledge or authority is more than offset by the lost opportunity to influence or be
influenced by this informed evaluation and settlement discussion. Thus, lead counsel are asked to come
prepared to articulate their view of the merits of the case as well as their clients' interests and needs.
The conference attorneys do not necessarily expect counsel to have absolute settlement authority. Our
experience is that in most cases there is more movement from prior settlement positions than anyone
expected requiring further consultation with clients. Thus, counsel may wish to have clients present
at the time of the conference or available by phone. Clients are not required to be present at most
initial conferences.
Mandatory Participation - Voluntary Settlement
Sixth Circuit Rule 18 requires the participation of all parties in scheduled conferences, usually
through their counsel. Sometimes the purposes of the conference cannot be achieved without the
involvement of individuals or groups who are not parties to the appeal; such parties may be invited to
participate. No actions affecting the interests of any party or the case on its merits, however, will be
taken without the consent of all parties.
Confidentiality
By rule and by verbal agreement at each pre-argument conference, nothing said by the
participants, including the conference attorney, may be disclosed to anyone on the Sixth Circuit Court
or any other court that might ever deal with the case on the merits. This applies in all cases, including
ones referred for mediation by the Court. The Court strictly enforces this confidentiality rule.
TO:
FAX#:
FROM:
10:44 BA I LEY BA I LE' ( & = TOl<ES
ANNE DR~JM~EE GULLJ:CK
200 Jeffe~son Ave., Ste. 800
Memphis , Termessee '38103•·2340
Office:· (901) 575-870::>
fax: (901) 57~i - 8717
PAC£1IMILE
Mr . J lius Chambers and Mr. Cly,:le M.ul.lill.L
i
~26-7592
w- .I. B '1
C•ctober Z 9,
a Jter ai ey
.-... _ ,.,.._. ...
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER; : 1
REMARKS
1992
The f< , l lowing memorandum __ ;., .. ___ will 1 ~pdate ~u both. on the
t:<.>rtf(;!,t"t;!IlCI;! t:c:tll conducted br the Si:
(~arner v. . e:m12hia Police Dept , , et i
CONf'XDl:NT:CALX!r¥ HO!rXCI.!:
010
TI•t lnfnrmodo , rnm.alnod In this faoomllo """''Ill:" .a lq;ally prlvtlci;, d aud connd "2llal lnkorwalloo mtcadcd only fur tbe uoc ur lbt,
l11d"1d11al o~ tnll na.nu, above, If tbc reader or tl,ls melin::c ls not l bc lnle ty oiled redr,leo· , )'OU lltt bel'tby bOtiOed 1blll lll)' di\llClllloAliOD,
diJll'ibutiou, or wpy or lblf 1,fooo())' b &tri~11y problbll.t(I, If you t,ave J'l!Ulvea u,l!, 1.elOCA1py Inc Tor, ;>ICl&l:e untl(y u, hntnoolatcly by tclqibonc and
tC!lUfll IUC orli;lnal lll<lHII: 10 us II ll1e above addrcst ,1. tbe tJ. s. l'oslal Scrvlc.c.
OCT 29 ' : 2 I I : 38 901 575 8717 PAGE.010
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL.FUND, INC.
M~O~UUM
TO: Finance
FROM: Clyde E. Murphy
RE: Gamer v. Memphis Police Dept., et al [0743-27
DA1E: November 13, 1992
We have agreed to pay $3,000 in fees and expenses associated with the appeal of this
case. The attached letter/invoice covers 126. 75 hours, which at $30 per hour equals
$3,802.~0. Per our agreement I am requesting a check for $3,000 to cover 100 of the hours
claimed. The check should be given to me for mailing to Mr. Bailey with a cover letter I
will prepare.
cc: Charles Stephen Ralston
\
FAlt1 (90 1) 575•8717
Nove mbe1~ 6 1
WALTER L1IB BAJLE:r, JR.
~rroRNnY AT LAY'
SUITB ioo, ONH MBMPHI:i PLACB
200: JB!lPIJF'.SON A V8:-lUB
W!MJ>HlS, m.NNnSSBB mo)
Mr. Clyde Mu ·phy
At torn_e:t at ~aw
NAhCP Legal afense Fund
99 Hudson st., 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
RE:
Dear Mr .
ner v. Memphis Pol .ice De pt . 1 et ,tl
hy :
OFFICE: (~0 I) i,7:,-070 :,
Please let his letter serv,e as confirma ~ic,n of our telephone
conversation -::>f November 6, . J.992 con:::ernin,3 thH pa:rticipation of
the NAACP in the fee arrangeinents for the b1·ief preparation in the
above- styled case. The following is an invc,ice for the time
already spen on thi s case:
August Total[ - 22 h ours. 'I h ctve already pe1~sc:mally compensated
Ms. Gullick ·:: the rate of $3 0 an hour for t h•~s-~ hours.
septeml:>er J- 15 - 11 hours. I have a l t'eady personal l y compensated
Ms . Gullick ·"' the rate of $3 0 an hoi.;.rs for thi::, work.
September •5 -30 - 8.5 .hour s - u ncompe nsa t •~d
October 1-15 - 32 . 75 hours - uncompe ns;i t •ad
October 16-31 - 31 hours - uncomi:: en:;atec1
Nov ember 1-10 - 21.5 hour s - uncomi:: eni;ated
The $3000 a reed upon base remunera•:: ion wi l:. be c1ppl ied to the
above state hours a t the subsist•~nce ?·ata of $30 an hour.
Inc luded is y reimbursement for fees a lread r7 forwarded . According
to my cal cul t.ions, then, that would leave appro)fim;:1.tely 2 6. 5 hours
uncover ed by your pt·esent submi:,sion .
Mr. Clyde Mu
Re; Garner
Date: Novem
Paqe 2 of 2
phy
, Meinpllis Police Di~pt., E! t: al
t~r 1 0 I 1992
I appreciate; your time, cooperation, and C!Onsideration,
forward to 1c,rking with yo\l personally an~ y o·ur c•:Ef ice
ap;~~al progr :;ses. Thank you again.
Very truly y urs,
I
~lter Lee :~ Jr.
I look
as this
:P 305 276 943
RECEIPT FOR CERTI MAIL
0 l----~----=l.L.fr+"-t:11.il.~=.!:....:....__ -1
G:
d
~ 1-P-O-Sl_a_ge_;,_.:.;;;:.;;~ :.;;;;=...:.- t..1..:::;..::=-;..;.~
Cert,t,ed Feo
Special Delivery Fee
Aes1ric1ed Delivery Fee
Re1urn Rece1p1 showing
10 whom and Date Det,vered
II')
CD Re1urn Rece,pt show,~ 10 whom O'I
Date and Address of el,very
CII
C: TOT AL Postage ano Fees s ::, ..,
g Postmark or Date
CD
(')
111~~/1i-E
0 u..
VI
0.
STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CL.ASS POSTAGE,
CERTIFIEO MAIL FEE, ANO CHARGES F<lR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES. (ut lrontl
1 II you want this receipt postmarked, stick the gummed stub to the right of the return address leaving
the receipt attached and present the article at a post ott1ce service window or hand It to your rural carrier.
(no extra charge)
2 If you do not want this receipt postmarked. stick the gummed stub to the right of the return add, • .s of
the artJcle, date, detach and retain the receipt, and mall the article.
3 If you want a return receipt, write the certified mall number and your name and address on a return
receipt card, Form 381 t. and attach It to the front of the article by means of the gummed ends if space per
mits. Otherwise, aftlX to back of article. Endorse front of article RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
adjacent to the number
4 If you want delivery restricted to the addressee, or to an authorized agent of the addressee, endorse
RESTRICTED DELIVERY on the front of the article.
~ ..
5. Enter fees tor the services requested In the appropriate spaces on the front of this receipt If return
receipt 1s requested, check the applicable blocks In item 1 of Form 381 t.
6. Save this receipt and present It 11 you make inquiry.
; ~
• U.S.G.P.O. 198ll-234-55~
,6JIDF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
Nalional Off/a
Suite I (i()()
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592
c ,,,.,n·ls..tio.u a,-,
d,J,,,rihl, fo, U.S.
"'"'"" '"" l"''P""'·
Mr. Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Suite 800, One Memphis Place
200 Jefferson Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
November 25, 1992
Re: Gamer v. Memphis Police Dept., et al
Dear Walter:
Enclosed per our agreement is check number 31344, in the amount of $3,000. My
understanding is that this amount is being applied to 100 hours of work in preparation of
the brief in Gamer. While I have not seen the final brief, we all thought that the first two
drafts were very good. I am looking fmward to seeing the final product.
Th, NAACP Legal Dcf<n.se & .Ecluc>1iooal Fund. Inc. (LOF) u DO< pan
of the National Auociarion for the Advancemcn, of Colored People
(NAACP) ,hhougb LDF was founded by ,he NAACP u,d sham iu
co.mm..itment to equal righu. LDF has had for over 30 ycu s a ,cp~n,c
Bond. program. naff. office and budge,.
Suite X>t
1275 K Strec<. NW
Wuhing1on. DC 1JlOOS
(202) 682-1300
f,x: (202) 682-1312
Swcc 208
JI S Wen Ninth Street
lo> Angcks. C A 90l15
(m ) 624-2-l05
Fu: (213) 624-<075
\
••
..
•
SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 and 4 .
Put your address in the " RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
from being returned to you. The return recei~t fee will provide you the name of the person delivered to and
the date of delivery. For add1t1onal lees the ollowtng services are ava,lable. Consult postmaster for fees
and check box(es) for additional servicets) requested. •
1. 0 Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's.address. 2. D Restricted Delivery
(Exrra cha,ge) (Extra charge)
3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number
? 30~- :21i-1
Mr . Walter Lee Bailey, Jr .
One Memphis Place
Suite 800.
200 Jefferson Avenue
Memphis: Tennessee 38103
Signature - Addressee
7. Date of Delivery
1/<J!J4V
PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989
Type of Service:
0 Registered
ilcertified
0 Express Mail
0 Insured
0 COD
O Return Receiot
for Merchan,.1;.~
Always obtain signature of addresse1
or agent and DATE DELIVERED.
8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if
requested and fee paid)
DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
Print your name. address and ZIP Code
in the space below.
• Complete items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the
reverse .
• Attach to front of anlcle If space
permits, otherw ise affix to back of
article.
• Endorse article • 'Return Receipt
Requested" adjacent to number.
U.S.MAIL
111111111111111111illi()
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE. $300
RN Print Sender's name, address, and ZIP Code in the space below.
Clyde E. Murphy , Esq
99 Hudson Street 16th FJoar
New York, NY 10013
ANN E BROWNLEE GULLICK
A TTO RNEY AT LAW
O N E M E M P HIS P LAC E PHONE 901-S75-8702
f"AX 90 1-S75-87 17 2 00 .J E FFERSON A V E ., SUITE 800
MEM P HIS, TN 38103-2340
FEDERAL EXPRESS AIRBILL NUMBER - 3262099713
December 1 , 1992
Mr . Clyde Murphy
Attorney at Law
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson St., 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
RE: Garner v. Memphis Police Dept., et al
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Enclosed you wil l find a bound copy of the appellant ' s brief
filed with the Sixth Circu it in the above- styled cause. I
attempted to incorporate as fully as possible your added
suggestions. I hope you will find them satisfactory .
ALSO L ICENSED
I N MISSISSIPPI
You had questions about some aspects of my writing style that we
have not had the opportunity to discuss. First , you wondered
about the reference to the record entry number, the document, and
page number when I cited to the record rather than to the
appendix page number . The Sixth circuit encourages a delayed
submission of the appendix. It is not due to be filed until
after t h e r ebutt al brief is filed. The defendants will have a
chance to add to the appendix by their designation attached to
their brief. Therefore, there is no way of being certain of the
appendix page numbers at this time . Further, the Sixth Circuit
sent sample citations which utilized the form incorporated in
this brief. See Fed.R.App.Pro. 30(c) and Sixth Circuit Rule
10 (b) .
Next, you wondered why I did not argue more strongly that a
question of fact existed which should have prevented the grant of
the defendants ' motion for summary judgment . The defendants
never moved for summary judgment in this case. They merely
responded to the p l aintiff ' s factua l ly supported motion for
partial sum:l1ary judgment wit h the legal argument of Carter v.
City of Chattanooga. They never requested the Court to enter
summary judgment for them. Obviously, then, the grant of summary
judgment to the defendants was sua sponte in nature.
Mr. Clyde Murphy
Re: Garner v. Memphis Police Dept.
Date : December 1, 1992
Page 2 of 2
The point I was trying to make was that if the legal argument
supporting the summary judgment was insufficient in and of
itself, then the defendants had failed in their burden of
opposing the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.
Indeed, the argument goes that there is no question of fact
necessary for trial determination, but the facts are in favor o f
the plaintiff rather than the defendants.
In the final draft, I attempted to make this distinction by
varying the degrees the court could look at the evidence of
record. At the very least, there must be a question of fact of
the existence of the Monell policy sufficient to have precluded a
defendants' summary judgment. However, at best, the undisputed
evidence of record clearly shows the Monell policy sufficient to
support a summary judgment for the p laintiff .
Finally , I have all versions of the brief on Word Perfect.
Consequently, any argument deleted from later drafts is preserved
for use in the rebuttal.
I hope this is more clear for you now, and I hope that you are
pleased with the final draft. I appreciate your time,
assistance, and cooperation in the preparation of the drafts. I
would also like to ask you to extend my gratitude to your
colleagues who assisted. If I can be of further help, p l ease do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
~~~~1-
Anne Brownlee Gullick
Enclosure
cc: Walter Bailey, Jr.
6JIDF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
Ms. Anne Brownlee Gullick
Attorney at Law
One Memphis Place
200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 800
Memphis, 'IN 38103-2340
National OjJic,
Suite 1600
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592
December 2, 1992
Re: Gamer v. Memphis Police Dept., et al
CO"tribMtiotu o,-t
J,J..,,ibl, Jo, U.S.
in£0fflt f4X' rrpons.
Dear Ms. Gullick:
Thank you for the bound copy of appellant's brief. I believe I can safely say for my
colleagues and myself that we were all impressed with your work, and indeed felt that any
of the early drafts would have sufficed to provide an excellent assertion of appellant's
position. It follows, that we believe the final brief makes a clear and persuasive argument
on the issues. Congratulations on a job well done.
Please let me know when you receive the appellee's brief, since there is always the
possibility that they may neglect to serve me.
cc: Walter Bailey, Jr.
The NAACP Leg•I Defense "51 Edunuonal fund. Inc. (LDf) IS not part
of tbt Nation2J Aisoc-nlion for the Advancement of Colored People
( NAA C P) ,1,hougb LOF was founded by ,he NAACP and slurcs its
commitment co equal ragbts. LDf h1s had for over JO yeas a scpu:atc
Board. program. staff. office and budget.
R,g,o,w/ Offu,
Suite :lOI
1275 K Sir«<. NW
W»hington. DC 20005
(202) 682-tJOO
Fax: (202) 682-1312
Suite~
31.S West Ninth Sm~tt
L<lS Angele,. CA 9001 S
(213) Ol+-24()5
Fax: (213) 624-0075
6WJF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
ANO EDUCATION AL FUND, INC .
Walter J. Bailey, Esq.
Bailey, Bailey & Stokes
200 Jefferson Avenue
Suite 800, 1 Memphis Place
Memphis, Tennessee 38103
Dear Walter:
Nodotto/Off,a
Suite I (i()()
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592
December 7, 1992
I trust that you have been able to work out the matter of Garner v. Memphis Police
Department with Clyde Murphy. Clyde provided me with a copy of his letter to you of
November 6.
JLC/ cp
cc:
c .... nbvr-.. .,,
""-ct~/, for U.S
u,,o,,v ,..... ,,.,,,,un.
rpt,~
The NAAC P ~gal Dcferuc & Educa,ional Fund. Inc. ( LDF) u no, par<
of th< Nattonal Auocsauon (01 the Adnnctmn, of Colored People
( NAAC P) ahhoush LDF wu founckd by the NAAC P and sham ns
comrn1tmtn1 ,o equal rigbu. LDF hu bad for over lO yurs • separate
Board, progr,m, uaff, office and budge< .
Sincerely,
Rtzi•""' Off1tt1
Suu, JOI
1275 K Str«t, NW
Washington. DC 20005
(202) 682-IJOO
Fu: (202) 68?-1312
Swee lllll
llS Wev. Ntnch Str«I
LO\ An~k,, CA 9!'015
(21J) 112 .. 2➔<.6
F..- (213) 1>24-007S
Ll':ONARI) G l1E8N
c1.1, n1<
UNITED S TAT ES C OUR T OF APPEAL S
S I X TU CJ l1CU I T
r, :1~ U.:C:. POST O F FICE & COlin'fl l OUSE 0 VILDINC
C' I NC' I N ,'i ATI. 0 111 0 IS'.!0'.!-:1088
December 21, 1992
T 8 1,r,; l' IION f;:
(.S I :1) 08 1-~0 53
VTS 08·1- ~01>:3
Mr . Henry L. Klein, Esq .
Apperson, Crump, Duzane & Maxwell
45 Second Street
Suite 2110 One Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103
RE : 92-6196
Garner vs . Memphis Pollce Dept
District Court No . 75-00145
Dear Counsel:
The appellee ' s brief which you have submitted is being returned
because it does not conform to the guidelines set forth in the appropriate
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Local Rules of the Sixth
Circuit as specifically indicated below .
No addendum designating the contents of the joint appendix has been
included in the brief as required by 6th Circuit Rule lO (d) and
ll(b) . [The addendum provided has no information whatever . )
The references in your brief do not conform to local and federal
rules, as exemplified by the enclosures provided . Please provide
not only docket entry nwnbers, but descriptions of the lower court
documents and specific page numbers, when appropriate.
You are required to submit ten (10) copies of the corrected brief . A
single copy of the brief has been returned to assist you in completing the
needed corrections . However, court policy does not permit the return of the
remaining briefs .
If the corrected brief j.s not received in Lhis office by 1/4/93
the court will instruct the appellant to file the appendix and the case will
proceed without presentation of your position . Rule 3l(c), Fed _ R. App .
P. No motions for extension of this deadline will be entertained .
Very truly yours,
Leonard Green, Clerk
I
CC :
Mr . Walter Lee Bailey Jr .
Ms . Anne B. Gullick
Mr . Clyde E. Murphy
Mr . Arthur Shea
U N ITED S TATE S COURT OF APPEALS
S I XT ll C ll1C UIT
LEONJ\11D GHEEN
C I. P. ll I(
!;38 U.S. POST OFFIC8 & COURTIIOUSE 13UILDING
C l 1 C I NNATI. 0 111 0 •l !i:!0~-:11l88
Henry L. Klein, Esq .
Apperson , Crump, Duzane & Maxwell
45 Second Street
Suite 2110 One Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103
RE : 92-6196
Garner vs . Memphis Police Dept
District Court No. 75-00145
Dear Counsel :
December 21 , 1992
TELl, P IIONC
(5 13) (}84-:!IJ!;:1
FTS U84-~0:,:l
You are hereby advised that the revised briefing schedule for the above
styled appeal begins today as set forth below .
APPEILEE'S
BRIEF
REPLY BRIEF
(Optional)
JOINT
APPENDIX
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
10 copies---red covers---50 page limit
Must be signed by counsel
Proof of service---appendix designation
Must be filed with the Clerk ' s office
by 1/4/93 .
10 copies---gray covers---25 page limit
Must be signed by counsel
Proof of service
Must be filed with the Clerk ' s office
by 1/21/93.
5 copies---white covers
Proof of service
Must be filed with the Clerk's office
by 1/19/93 .
If you have any questions about these instructions, you should write or
call the Clerk ' s office .
CC :
Wal ter Lee Bailey Jr.
Anne B. Gullick
Clyde E. Murphy
Arthur Shea
Very truly yours ,
'
I
Mr . Clyde E. Murphy
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
LJIDF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
National Office
Suite I (j()()
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592
Contributio,u o,~
tkdw,1ibl, f01 U.S.
incoffll' tox purpo.su.
Ms. Anne Brownlee Gullick
200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 800
Memphis, Tennessee 38103-2340
FAX: 901-575-8717
January 13, 1993
Re: Garner v. Memphis Police Department
Dear Anne:
Once again I think you have done a fine job on the reply brief. I do however have
a few comments for you to consider. I have attached the pages on which I have comments.
I don't see the utility of the information on page 1. Unless it is required by the
Circuit I would eliminate this part and go right to the argument.
On page two I suggest eliminating some of the language in order to get to the point
a little faster. As you will see, the suggestions on pages 2 and 3 are largely style points,
though I think putting the reference to Owen in quotations ( on page 3) makes your point
clearer.
In case you can't read my handwriting I decided to type out my comments on pages
15 and 16.
15: This is not the proposition for which Belcher stands. In Belcher, there was no
constitutional violation, p.36; one of the claims against the officers is that they "failed" to
follow city policy; and the court found the claims against the city "more attenuated" then
those against the officers.
16: If might be better to quote City of Canton here, since the issue of deliberate
indifference arises where there is the absence of an explicit unconstitutional policy, and
deliberate indifference to repeated unconstitutional violations becomes the policy.
T be NAACP Leg~ Defense ~ Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) although LDF w., founded by the NAAC P and shues its
commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate
Board, program, staff, office and budget.
Suite 301
1275 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 682-1300
Fax: (202) 682-1312
Suite~
315 WeS1 Ninth Street
Los Angeles. CA 90015
{213) 624-2405
Fax: {213) 624-0075
~111ioruil Officer.
Will1an1 T ( l'•lc11u111. J1
< h,111nw,, vi rht: /k'Clf.f
Rt,hcrt fl l"rrbk~·I
l't(~,,,inu
B.un11.1:,T"lon O P:u~cr Ir
I,, ••• ,..,~_ti,il''"
Harnct R•l>h
.\'i'\°'lt'l1Jr)'
Hc,111,u °' -l\pr!rwh;11h
I ft'a.flJfl:.I
~-lr.fi:ulhe Officer-.
J11J:1L; I ( llltnthrh
fhrf (,,r( 1'h}l.,,,1
l I.ml[" R. Junn.
!1tpw, /Jut•f1,•1-t ,,un~d
I li,k I 'lurpl1'
fJt1fJUII,. fltr~t'"1r-( C.'flflW/
l"har!,r-\. "-,t.epllrn R.,i~•o11
l"'f'WJ /)ire," r I r,1,r.vl
Board of l>ire<lors
IMlw· "ti~r \;.u 1n
,\11.,m:1, <">t'Orgi.1
\1ithL10~ t; •\m,,crdum
'-c\\ \ nr l, ,cw Y1,1 k
( aarc:n,._~ L\\'.u11
I Ai-, A11,g1:k-:. ( .l11!orn1a
\t,1110 I B,H_'•,1,1
\c,, \'i.u~. '\e'i\ Yt.Hl
lohn I llaJ<,·r
;\lba11\. ~(W Yn1 t
\h<c ~I llca,:cy
Sn11 l·r;mC:'-,Co. t. ,1h(ornn1
MM) t-mt11.X!<i }kt1\·
\\.,1-..hm~h,n, ll ('
\ru1J ( \OIi.iii no111t
St I n .. L ... \i iv~oun
P:Hnti.a "i lhan\lor!J
,cw h1ri, '.\·w \'1,n..
Alk.:n f Hru1t,..1-J11t
,a11 h,111c1:-.:o, l .1lJfi1 mua.
\\ dh.111, II llru1'n 111
l'htf;-uJc-lplna, P::nn,~·l\,u11:1
,\om,C' H:r:Jlh,...~ult' ftur\.t
I o~ \ n~IL"'i, (_ -tlitorn,a
I I! l. ln·born
IJ.-il!a!'I. ll''-'L."
'w Jlwm K < -lh~nt:
"\an l r,HK.l",(:n. •."a1t1Pm1.a
11,r-,M.JurC' I l f(h'.\
N,·w YorL '\'n.i. )' l'I ~
hlhot I J"Ak:mt>crt<
\11;tm1. t-fond.1
·\lh!10U , . ();,~•1~
C'hK:.a~c•. 1\lwin,
()...•,It: ll1t\.L~
~rv. Ko<:h~Hc. \ry. \·or~
Pt·tcr J l>t;l,u~1
\f'W \'or~. "'-c\li,· i',..1r\
.Adn:m Y.- I t..;\VipJ
~C\lr, Y1.,1~;, ~CV.. Y,11 .;
t\ nlh11n\' I >owm
'-';1,..-.hmgtr,11, fJ l
R•>h<-n I· Druw.o
\\;1"),hJll~L'll, t, l.
C IHU'JL .... J Jluntd••
"-~\)hingtorL r, {-
1'.L:.:lll'.:1h C l,JL'lm
H, ,,ton .. \1;b\,;Ji, hu:.c!'1t,
Henry ,\,u1111
~1nc \lk-11
Arthur R. ·\:-he'
l1•Jn fl.J('l.
lluch lla,·h
Vl\1u11 1 ~ Heamtm
H,uf\ Uc1,11,,n1<
Saul .lldlL•"
J<Jhn l lknntU
I tronc l~mu:·rt Jr
V-1ulJ \\' l<cm.sril
le• ,n.m.1 lk•rn.,tcin
H•n• ,\ Bethe
.lulmn Hnnil
llc:'nf'\ I Roumr
(Jr,,rr,.: I' Hioekwa~
, ,·•11n11" lhau,w.urt Hn,~c
[hlhnun f'arr,)11
\\.itr.111• \Vn~hl hli•lrl).tn
\Va.- ~mr.•ro1·, _ I> (
(" hn1,111phe-r t- 1-.J!c\
'\cw R1"-""hcUe. \'r~ 't'nr'-.
Tom I .1-.
1\r-w 'tmt \ry, 'Vorl
D;1·,111 f J ~ikr
Htrl.dt\· ( ,11itorn1.,
( l,LftrK't' I ,ult\
t-..1_. Angele,:. ( .tl1frrm.'.l
\b.n-111 I h;;u;;d
._,.,.. Y•11k. ""' Y,o: •
l~nn.tlJ I (,.ml\
'-c" \.,rl. ''"" , ,.,l
~arim:ttr. H (i,h:-1.m
l'nnectun. \:t·.i. .J1.7·..l')
J.u:k C,rt:c.-nt,t•tf!
~t'\\ "t1,1·1r,,. '\icv.- lor~
{,1,rJ1.1n (; • ,rcu,cr
llcn\e. ( l'lor;u1,\
t 1.h'"V I >uri J-liS, ti.o,,
l1 tuj.;u,.klpt11111 Prn.11..,,.-,\~U1ta
< rt~lfk"'- \". U.un1Ut:-n
,,~· \\,1 ~·. "cw \t,1 k
li,w> lt,rn,
\'ci.A. \\,d .. Ne\'- ·,,,rJ...
l li<•t II uhh.onl II I
l.mcoln, \1.s..•,.hlChU\t!ltr
l".:llfl1o.;,1 f ln111
~r-\4 'r"orl., ,,_.~ \'Mk
I lcrn1.111 Johm,ln
)\:111\a., Cit\· ,_ \tr~v1\J11
-\uni! I ·..iii I, Jour.
h1 ,1 hHI. \1.1, ,M,.;htl~ll
J:-lfJ ~ . .l11nt"-
Cl1ic,i;1<1. 1lh11L'L'
~)uJOi.:\ h,ur,
l.1)"\ ·\111,.'t'll~ ... ( Jilt .. Jliilll
\"nwm f fotdith, I
W.i~h:11gt, '"• 11 •
11:sn, lC.1h11
,cu \1111, 'in,· 'nnJ...
\ ·chqJ.i>!.., I .tcH k.,111mh.u.; !1
M,,m!>llJY.11, .".:~\.\ lcp:'°"·
fi,l\,J I. Kcnd;il\
\\...1!1h111rt1..•n, 1 • t
H.rc1nal,J I J..t•w1"a
~r-w Y<1tl .. "\('v, '\'orl
Pa\ 1,: '-. ! ,mJ.,u
'.r~ lo1J;. ~l"W 'hu~
.h1hn ll M,1gum::
C-1.rrrmout, ' .lhfomt 1
(1(,,'t..llt;l· r ~1.uo:ha.11. 11.
i tA ,\ngr.'~~. l ·.,hk,nu,L
Paul \1i.Htlt .11
\.e ..\-" Y,Hl \cv. York
l,urn··. ~t i'<Hhnt. Ill
\\:,,..,h,11):,ll•U. ( 1 (
I lc\•al I Pat rn •
B1,.1,,n. Ma;.~,.1.d'\J .L-tL,
\1,HlUl D P.a,·-~Hl
\rYI hu l ,cw h)1 L
'-1cpl.,.n I l'olLu.
v.·'1•:.tur,l,!.hln, r, C
l.tt\bc'rt O Prcvn
( .tmhni18C ,-.fo'-5.tl i11Jt,('ll-.
(.,fr:•,,l(llJ ,, .. ,11\\-.Hfl t-•urnarr,
B,l:,tun, \1a~l1U-'.Ctt.>
; >Jmrl I l-t.1hm11v.111
\:c~\\ Y,ul 'c"° '"rl
l,1tt1f, J,- l l;l't.•~
,horll"\- l htsholn,
fCt11t')(",, (latk
·\.iron (',1rl.ar11J
IMll"n,b1
\1.u1<dl Dane
<}.,\Ii.: Da.\•:;
John U , lohn,1111
\11, l'cf'C') luil;rn
Hu1ac,· M K11llrn
Fthd K~rrnr,t.l~•
J.tO•C~~ J. a-.-.JC'fl(."t: i1
\t:u. (..('mtr-
\\' \1thur 1.t·wl)
11,hn A \1.}d;.1"
l-l11r.1i.'t' .... \1Jf1~,
Hrnr, I :\1,mh Ill
lfohv De,·
\' 1~1.L'r.~} I )(1 r:-c
ll.Jph I lli<o,,
John lll•f!C- l·r,1nLhn
\11"\. ,\. 1 i f,.t,ton
K('n11cth .r\ lntl-t)ll
lt,,l:.-tnil H (i11td-.;1.1lm
t·ILlfk:-$ f Goillkl.l
i(1,'h1t1d <, H,llLht"I
llH:C\i.f,nr.- \1 I k-hur.,:
M;Jnhn Horllf"
\\ ,U,am 1.,m« f\1,<,,11
Lim.fa H \1cK~an
~.ul \.kmun)l.t'1
r to:uk-0 f\kmll
-\nhu, \lofrhdi
P.tul !'--cwinan
..\nlh<'ll't 'lc\-\J.t'\
l Jc,1nt..,r HotmN \i1ntoH
t ~ .,,, Rtl1-1lvl1,~
~,-~ '1•!'~. \:i'V. \or\
C1H·...:·n I RJ.,
Io;,, \nf~-i~. < onf•,mw
ltrnr, : H .. ,th
l'h1t:"h:luh1.a. Pcn11-.vl\·an1,t
~01m.111 Rl't1,,rlt
,: \\ ,,.,._ , .. \~ \'n,11;
l lrnlir°' H l<: 11'1,·"
'ia11 l ·rd.l1l .,, ( -,llih,rr,,,◄
IL1rH'\ t l(1J _,rll
\"onlr•, '\1 ,. y, ,, •·
Jtu.J,th I ~,.-r:,..·r
ltr -o~(J1 e:, \1.,1. .-.,u:hu1-."th
W Iii.,~• II ,,. ~c,Jr
P1·n..:.r1.l,n, \icw kLC'-
1 rcJLnc•. ,\ ,, \c!1'-'·,,r7 J,
:,..;cv. \l,n, '1C'Y. \'or►
1-krmud l, \1·tal
l1 t11l ♦-dr.!ph.m. Pcnnwh·.m1.1
J.&c:{'lf'. "ihemi.n,i.lu
~,e" Ynrt . ...;e\l,, Yor\.
In·• •r}!t (. \u11l,n: J,
tiret"W1boro "\,,n~1 (. •• n,luw
\\..J\m.;Ui I· ..,_m,rh UI
\t l"UI • \h·••"Ut.
l\1td1,u::1 I ',o.,,, •n
,,.,,, ....... ,~ ·••"\\ '"•Ii~
H,wli;c K.ty..ina~'>11.:111g,1r1
'\(W '\ vr• 'J~\I. York
,. hu,·~ \1,1111"
< h:tl'c: •HJ f\; irt'11 \ ..ll),Ln,
Lt~ T,1r~,,
\:~w \Ml ,: w \'1,n.
1., Wlb k \·;u1n.
"ic"' ¥tid,: '\c.-~ \'or;.,
J;m1t."!» \·,,n-nf.-:jJ'
, 401hr\J~,: M..i~ .i.t.~hU'~t.
J,ihn \\. \\'a'k· r
! iit:o:- l<ud .• \1 k .. uv"'-..
r,cw._rr- \\itl!c-r;tt•11
',cattle. \\.hhll1J~f, ,n
fl ,t,,cn c \\.-,,\._,,
'-'.< w YooJ.. \..-v., y, ,rl
Jl.iul.a \\t•,n..;1rw
1 oi. \11gclt"-,, (. ·,,hf(ln11:i
'•1 \t11J;.1'1 \\~·.\tl\:
\n, ko~:h.-:Jc.•. 'l'" \'or~
1~ 1,~w \\ ~, ·l,n:,
\\'d,..h1n.:.tu1, Ill
I .. o[T1J.., \\·1Ju.tm:, Ii
H,,,,1,. , ·c"' hTTi
l\.drie:11 11:iSli<' W1!h.,m~
Wa.•hm~t••n J) l
·\t1,!1,•V. \1)llfl•!
-\lla.1111 I" l'lf.ll
Honor•n Board '\frmbt>r,,
lkltn 41 ... dm .. nd.::
I 1urham, ~nnn ( .1u,l111:1
\urnum f l·runc1'
\r\\ 1 hlr1J11:1, f "'J: ·J~rrn
l11lm H 1 ,p,: r:, .in11.1111
llur!t11111, ~-,m. l. Jrol11rn
\nn.1 1 .hlur
t).J.; l'a,, 111;,,_,.
t '.,11ml", T •1t1'.Jt;
,~-w ,..,l \~,\. Y,,n.
R.il>lf1 M \1d>1tt~.:tJ. I:
t :.11 Jl!h. l (hn, 11
J.,,,k"'. \1 \"f,r:I II
WJ .. -ltil1~'1• •II 1, 1
·1ia,11w,n BISIIOI' I' '\l I \100RI IJI
M.u:h,H1.t I c >ll1n~,:1
IA-•tll f ht . .!'•11J
, ,11rdo11 I\. B l•Ji Ii:·.
''ndnc, Pi •Uk'·
1,,~·ph I P ,lUJ. )1
< J,1 r 1(ow11,~
.1~11,r, I C...,,tttt1n.•aall. t,
\\1Hun1 II ~hr11J1
·\r1hur \Lt11r-sinJ,!rt _11
( hxr'c, 1-- ',1Jhcrn1.:1J1
1,,hn £' "-ip1tr,t1
\\tllwrn \t\r11r,
ld!or,i Lni,,1
RdlC,1 Pcr,o \\.:rrrn
f{ .. D.;11 f \\.t:i• ~
11",m \Vi..:1>-.·:r
~hri.,· I· .,_.ff, \\' 1tlu.11
rl,t ., .. ;,nirnmL"C 1)1 1011, .. ,i V11luntn~· •·••Clf>('I.Jll'I( r;r "'' ol m,i1\i.du.;11"" ,-..eadcd b\' ffo11lii1p l'1ul Moore l1
ha.~ spnn•,L•1t'J rhr- ,lJ'i{\(~a.) ,,11tw 'A:\C I' I C>~•1l I •rlt"11Y.· and l·<.hK.t111m,d l und1 Inc -.me,. 1"14'\ h"I cn.a.hk ll1t
l-uno l•, p11t 111,.-1 ,tp!r.itl• •n t p1o~•J~u,1 Jc" ;,e::;.;.._J 1, m•tlc ,k"'-'~gn.•i~:111• ,,, .1 rr,Jil\' thrnu,t1t1111 th,c f 1nl\l'l.l ,u,r--
Ms. Anne wnlee Gullick
January 13, 1~93
Page 2
While you may have a better quote from City of Canton in mind, one suggestion is
the following:
1° For example, city policy makers know to a moral certainty that their
police officers will be required to arrest fleeing felons. The city has armed
its officers with firearms, in part to allow them to accomplish this task. Thus,
the need to train officers in the constitutional limitations on the use of deadly
force, see Tennessee v. Gamer, 471 U.S.1 (1985), can be said to be "so
obvious." that failure to do so could properly be characterized as "deliberate
indifference" to constitutional rights.
It could also be that the police, in exercising their discretion, so often
violate constitutional rights that the need for further training must have been
plainly obvious to the city policy makers, who, nevertheless, are "deliberately
indifferent" to the need.
Sincerely,
'
•
17 : 07 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ':: TOl<ES
REBUTTlll, ARGU,tllWl
~-- .............. ~ ....... lil:Jil~·~
I
atter Jurisdiction
I •
evide.;nced by the record , arg uei<l by t .he plai nti , and
matter
002
y tbe defendants, th.ere is 1:1ufficient
and appellat: I jurisdicti on in this cau:3e jm:tif a decision on
I
the: merits by
a, Statemen] t e I
The def~r..dants add
Both of thes1 issues
court.' s c:onsideration.
l>e ee;ta:bl ished in the
f ol l=ing P•t • ••
c. statemenT of the caae
l ittle tc t e ~tz.tHment of the: case . The def endants add
i However, they do rely
:
pon ce:rtain fir.dings ml,dE~ by the trial
I
court in Sep1:ember 976 . It ::ihc>ul<1 be, the decision
" was appealed to
remanded tor: r
I
I
cir-:::uj_t, and
Garner v. Memplil:.
Department, ' :~ al., 600 F ,2d 5 2 (6th C:ir. 197H) [ Gar.rler ) •
I
I Therefore , any value it retains is oi: a lin1 it1!d nat·ure,
1
01/08/ 93 17: 07 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ~ TOl<ES
REBfflAL ARGtJt:11~ !
I
003
,;i: in carter y. icity ot qJuattoncwJ~nn,, s5Q 1,2a ~t;; <~th ~i~ 1988) dges not i!ll!ilil!..J;he az~~ia..ot: the summary
____ me_t b __ e district cou:,;t~.;LnstarL<~iL.
I : I
The dete;ndants in the instant caEi«! insj st 1;ha1: Carter v.
City of Chat+nooga, Tenn., 850 F,2d J.19 ~~h :lr, 1988) controls
this case, £-9~ ,,aEious reason~. HowevH:r , f/if;{.e ~, ~he aLguments
'
<Uspel tAe p~sitiun Of tne pla,1nt1tt n,:!t
I
~i.ef. Nor ~o tbG
I
!01 th fl.11 th.e eri9,inal➔
deciswm wit1stand scrutiny when viewc3:1 in :.ight of the United
states supre1e court's decisicms in Tc:1nness«ie v. Garner, 4 71 u. s.
1 (1985) and IJ·ames B. Beam Dfotillfog Co. v . Gec,rgi,i, __ u.s.
111 s.ct.. 2439 {l.991). GGnseqw:,otJy, the plaintiff onc;,e __ , !
a,ga in ;eeJce ~e.liet t~om tbe court iR ·thli fg ;:~ of a revensa) nn<i.
I , • l
g,FiUlt o:f Slllll~i1Fy Jl:IEilJR\eftt l:A h,1._li favo1: ...
The det~ndants initially assert that t :1e Ctrrter case held
!
that rnunicip~ l. ities have a de:f.'ense to a cla lm pursuant to 4-2
i
u.s.c. sectic;m 1983 based upon their relian::e on a policy c>:r
' '
course ot conduct previously det:ernline:d to t>e W:Lthi1,
i -\.l..-
constitutionb1 limits. The district court ::::al\\e to ·t:.A4-& same
conclusion b}' holding that Ca.rter ~zJ.owway overrul,:d that part
I
of Garner v. : Memphis Pol1ce Department:, 710 F . 2d 24 0 (6th cir.
i
1983) [ Garner! .rI) which aacl-held that 1nunicipa:.i·:.ies do not enjoy
i
a good faith! .lmmunity from liability under Sec;tlon 1983. Garner
i
II, 710 F.2d! ;,.t 248,
I
It is e ~ ident that the dis~rict c;ourt wa::i in error. As
i
I
noted in the' :>riginal brief, Carter iti not a r; a se ot immunity or
;
I
!
' 2
17: 08 BA ILEY BA ILEY & =TOl<ES 004
'
I
'
defenses to 1~ !lbili ty. The c;artc;)r dec: ;Laion di!l i :not: address any
type of good k !lith immunity, : and it ne:ver e...-en ~antiona the
I
questioned se:ction of Garner II. The Cartez· c1Jurt, in fact,
recognized tJat the City of Chattanoo9c1 could ~i.aim/~o immunity
I
since owe.nfr .: city of Indepez:i<rence, 4~.~3 u. s. 6 220 ( 19aog • ..;,, .J:F!
i
carter, 850 Fi• 2d at 1135. Rat.her, t:hH CartE•r c;ourt utilized
i
Chevron Oil do. v. Huson, 404 u.s. 97 (1971 ) to find that there
sitnply was
tha.t point
I
i
ntj violation of constitutio:nal ml1gnitude. To reach
tJe court was forcE:d to fin,j tha1: TennesEree v. Garner,
supra, did nqt apply retroactively to fact patterns antedating
'
that decisio~. Carter, 850 F.2d at 1134.
I
i
Addin9 qreclence to the submission that carter did not
ovorrule Garn~·r II is Barber v. city or Sal nm, Ohio, 953 F. 2d 232
j
( 6th Cir. 1992) . There, the Court di:c:-ectly addt·essE:d the issue
of a municip~J.ity's immunity nncl held:
Wh!le officials may not b•~ liable ur.detr
se¢t.ion 1983 because their action 3 (or
failure to act) wer,~ not constitu·::ic•nz1l
vic;>l.ations accordi"nq t:o clei2rly e ;ta.blish~~d
law at the time the actions took :?l<!.oE:, a
murp.cipali ty may ne•rez-the.less be lic.bJ.e i ;~
th~ actions complained ot rise to tl:e levHl
or : constitutional v .lol.ations in 1 igl.,t of
pr~went law. (Emph;~sls added).
Barber, 953 f .. 2d at 237 citinq Owen v. City o.f ~~ndependencE1, 445
U. s. 622, 657 •·658 ( 1980) but .:1ot ci tir,g Carter. consequently,
municipaliti~B in the sixth Circ:uit ce.nnot escape liability by
3
01/08/ 93 17: 14 BA I LEY BA I LEY & ':: TOl<ES 016
'
Tennessee la~. Garner I, 600 F.2d at 54. Further t he Sixth . ,
;
Circuit specifically held, "Applying 1;.·he qm,lif~ed "good faith"
privilege or ·immunity from lie,bility :~or coustiltutic,nal claims,.
• . we affirl'li that portion of the Di s1:.r-ict court's judgment
dis:missing the case agains t the indi v:L:1ual <le:teri.dants." Id, see
I
al~:o Garner z.1, 710 F.2d at 2~.2; Tenn«~ssee ,,_ Garner., 105 s.ct.
' I
at 1698 (Sixth Circuit affirmed Hymon' ::i dism.lssail on qualified
immunity) . Ac.cordingly, the reason that Hyuon !i s nc,t a defendant
today has nothing to do with whether he, in fact, vlolat ed
Gar ner 's constitutional rightf;. Inst◄~ad, 11: is cle~,r that he was
die;rnissed on the doctrine of qualifiec:1 immunity. ·rherefore,
under Doe the city is still a viable c1erendant. Dofi, 956 F, 2d at
55<..
The defendants also rely upon Ro,1ri<Jue;: v. city o~ Passaic,
730 F.Supp. 13 14 (D.N.J. 1990 ) and Be.Lehar ., . Ciliver, 898 F,2d 32
( 5th Cir. 199C•) for the propoBition t l1at mu • c i1}:,alities have been
~~tr
absolved of liability even where ,,as j ust
qualified imm«nity . However, un oe tha·; c l ~,arly is not the J.,>-
law in the Sb:th Circuit . tk 'c., ftf (
r v , Ibe plaiotirr need not Sh9'i a deli,11era·:e 2L.Qonscious ~•o~~~~ i
decision !111 tt,e part !If tM Cit~ Of M·•mPhis .s&-;J.!lll2l·e the Ji"'(_r:..-e:,• :~,~Jd'
constitut,1.onal rights Of the deceased:.. ~,., V ~
c./.,IJ:. .t11 .l ~J/
The defendants' fina l arqument s ,~ek s t•) ins;ert a new ~~ ,t\AA,,,.ur" ~~,o
£:) ,fv,, ~ 1 • t.P"'t,'""A :,A1 ~ •• :S ~ ,Q>
st,rndard at ~ juncture of the litlg.cstion . 'Ih'E1 del'.endants v~o~ ['-t~t i •
contend that · t .he meaning of the term "polic:," a,, used in Monellol!"'>~
has mutated into a "deliberatH indif f ,arence' st:~,ndard in all-<. Mt( V
15 \.,~,<, Ad ().\i~
~\,~ C, o.~~.A~
~~~~~~ffitit
01/08/ 93 17: 15 BA I L.EY BA I LEY & ~ TOl<ES 017
situations. :As support, the clefendants citH Cilty ot.' canton, Ohio
• I
v. Harris, 4~9 u.s. 378 (1989), but they adnit ithat the City of
canton case 1,nvolves a "failure to tr11in" c :.aim. Aei will be
seEm, that is a different situation fi~om tho on,e. at issue here.
In City er Oklahoma City v. TUtt.ie, lO!i
tht! Supreme Gc•urt examined thE! differ◄!nce in
S • ~it • ;;; 4 i ( 19 8 5) ,
thie, ty11e f Policy"
claim made irl the instant caew and that of n "f~.ilure to train"
I
claim. In T~ttle the respond(mt did not claiIT It.hat Oklahoma city
I
had an expre~s- policy of authorizing •:ixcess .Lve ~ orCE!. Rather,
thu responderit. argued that tho city h,sd a "polilc:y" c>f training
I
and supervis:i,.r,g police ofticers and tllat th•~ Pdl.icy resulted in
inadequate tra.ining and the cons ti tut ional ·riol~.tions. Tuttle,
105 s.ct at 1434 . The court then e,<plained the dif1'.erence in the
type "policy" at issue in MonHll and t hat b1~foriE: it.
The cour~ \ ;.. ~i,,.J.L
stltted: 11 -,.I\~} 1 L, t~ I
Respondent contends that Mo;'le11 s 11g9ee;ts the 'n,tf1V {) .!.fia
cor.t.rary result, bec=ause it "expr,!SSl!}' ~ i.J ..,_..
pr~vided that an ofl~ icial ',iecisi,m' 1woulct l ' --,J_, ~<.Ll r/~
suffice to establish liability, altho\:tgh ct , l-t {Y--_,)v,v
sin9le decision wiLL orten :1ave o :11y ich single (\/\ ' ~v,.\ ,~</Y
vict.irn." App . 14 . But thi::; very ccnt.entt on ~~
4
,t. 0,.-/~ l l ~
illustrates the widf~ cHffer,~nce b•~t~·eE:n the ~\,{S.,v/,A -~/~ e-?fk'
municipal "policy" alleged :1ere. The ~e,\. A-41-t ~r ~
"pol.icy" of the New York City Dep,lrtJT\E:nt of ~ {1,\l.1 /,
So~i.al Services that ,,,as ch-:llleng,?d i'r1 Monell~\.,'wl~ .t,, "'Lo.,J,;\JJ<,(r
Wa$ a policy that by its ~e:rms co:npell.ed ""~~ 't .l \l ~
pre9nant employees to take :11andat1)ry leaVE?S ,..,,,0 o~ /
of ~.bsence before :such leav,:3s wer1! IfiiGtuirm1 I.\,,.. O _..., ,,(p
for; medical reasons ,: this p -::>licy Ln a·nd of tA'-1~~ ./.t.;v. { {1" A ~
1
1 .._
itse:lf violated the c onstlt·Jtional riJ9hts of ,v\~Lvr;-
0
~~' u S V
presrnant employees l>y rea13o.n of O' lr d,Eicis j,on J~' a 1• r,✓
in Cleveland board o:t Education v. LaTleur, rt,fi
0
_- A l,'lV"'"
411 u . s. 632, 94 s.ct. 191, 39 L. :~d.2_c1 52 ~ol/.1.U"
( 1974). Obviously, it requires 0 :11~ lc,ne l) \ ~ v{ ,#
application of a pol icy sue::, as t i lie jt:o ~ J v ')
sati.sfy fully Monel~'. 's requirernen·: thM: a
muni.cipal corporation be held lia::>l e c,nly for
16
LEONARD G REEN
C LERK
Clyde E. Murphy
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SIXTH CIRCUIT
538 U.S. POST OFFICE & CO URTHOUSE BUlLDING
C IN C I NNATI, OHIO 45202-3{)88
ORAL ARGUMENT NOTICE
March 5, 1993
Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Anne B. Gullick
Henry L. Klein
RE: 92-6196 Garner vs . Memphis Police Dept
Dear Counsel:
TELE PHONE
(513) 684-2{)63
FTS 084-2Q53
Your case will be heard by a panel of the Sixth Circuit on 4/29/93
in Cincinnati, Ohio. Please report to the Clerk's Office, Room 524 in the
United States Post Office and Courthouse Building at the corner of 5th and
Walnut Streets in Cincinnati, no later than 1:30 p.m.
Court will convene prcmptly at 2:00 p.rn. Eastern Daylight Savings
Time. Oral argument will be limited to 15 minutes per side, unless expanded
by the Court at the hearing, or by granting a motion by counsel prior to the
hearing.
Unlike most circuits, the Sixth Circuit has continued to follow its
traditional policy of allowing oral argument in all civil and criminal cases
when requested by counsel. Oral argument may be waived by agreement of
counsel, however, with the approval of the Court . Please consider carefully
whether oral argument is needed in this case . If a waiver is appropriate in
this case, please notify the court by means of a motion to that effect .
Your attention is called to Rule 19 of the Rules of the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals regarding decisions from the bench. In appropriate cases,
decisions may be made by the panel from the bench following oral argument.
The Court asks counsel to provide the Court with infonnation on similar
issues either pending before this Circuit or in other courts of appeals .
You may do so by letter which will be given to the hearing panel .
Please return the encl osed self- addressed postcard immediately.
Enclosure
CC :
Arthur Shea
Very truly yours,
Marjorie Eliasen
Calendar Coordinator
...
Mr. Clyde E. Murphy
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
---
UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RE: CASE NO. 9 ,Q lo / V
DA TE OF ARGUMENT ..._,, - ')9'-9' >
Dear Mr. Green:
The undersigned acknowledges receipt of your notice of oral argument in the
above cited case.
I will represent:
(specify)
(Appellant)
(S{MCi/y)
(Appellee)
(SfMCify)
(Other)
Date Print Name
j
111111
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENA LTY FOR PRIVATE USE: $300
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
Fl AST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12615 WASHINGTON, O.C.
POSTAGE WI LL BE PAID BY UNITED STATES COURTS
6CA- 18
9/88
Leonard Green, Clerk
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit
524 U.S .P.O. & Courthouse Bldg .
Cincinnati , Ohio 45202-3988
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILE D
IN THE
UNITED STATES
-- a . ____ .._ __ _..._,.. __ _.._._ ________________________ _... -- •
11111
U.S.MAIL
c 1 He 1 HM~11 , rnn n ~42. o.!r~6~~i~:RA;:
USC-426
Mcle-1..,.
r
Conmbwuo,u " '
d,J,,,11bk fo, L'.S.
iN o m< r" pwrpos,s.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
NatioMI 0/liet
Suite l(i()()
99 Hudson Street
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013-2897 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592
Anne Brownlee Gullick, Esq.
Bailey, Bailey & Stokes
200 Jefferson Avenue
Suite 800
Memphfa, 1N 38103
April 21, 1993
Re: Gamer v. Memphis Police Department
Dear Anne:
Enclosed is our check in the amount of $1,000 as an advance against time and
expenses in connection with the argument in Gamer. I will need invoices and/or receipts
to cover charges against this amount, which you should provide to me as soon as possible
on your return. Because of our financial condition, we hope that the amount of the
advance will be sufficient to cover the remaining fees and costs associated with the appeal.
Good luck with the argument. I am sure you will do a great job. If you would like
like to discuss the argument, I will try to arrange a conference call for Monday or Tuesday.
If you have any questions about the arrangements, please give me a call.
cc: Walter J. Bailey, Esq.
The NAACP Legal Ocferu., & Educwo112I Fund. Inc. ( LOF) u not part
of ,he N21,onal Auocm,on for the Adv2nccmcn1 o( Colored People
(NM CP) ,l1bougb LDF was founded by the NAAC P and ,hares in
cornm11mcn1 <0 equal righu. LOF Im had for over 30 yeu, a s,paruc
Boud. prognm, mff. office and budget.
R,g,o,,a/ OJJ'ua
Suue 301
1275 K Street, NW
Washing,on, DC 2000S
(202) 682-1300
fax: (202) 682-1312
Swten
)15 Wen :-l,nth Sire«
to, /rngeics. Cl\ '1001 S
1213) 624-2,l()S
Fax: 213\ 62"-<Xl75
'
SERIAL NO. J 2 71 QN.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. CHECK NO.
VENDOR REF. NO. INVOICE DATE
4/21/93
VENDOR NAME
ANNE BROWNLEE GULLICK
DESCRIPTION
VENDOR NO. CHECK DATE
4/21/93
CASE NO
OTHER
0743- 27
P.O NO
01S8URSfM[NT
CODE
716 5-01
NET AMOUNT
1 , 000.00
TOTAL NET
1,000.00
6W)f NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
TO: Finance
FROM: Clyde E. Murphy
RE: Gamer v. Memphis Police Department 0743-27
DATE: April 21, 1993
Please prepare a check payable to cooperating attorney, Anne Brownlee Gullick in
the amount of $1,000, to cover attorneys fees and costs in connection with the Sixth Circuit
argument in this case.
cc: Charles Stephen Ralston
l!- ~ i1
\I( -/ic./3-Jf(f
6WJF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
TO: Finance
FROM: Clyde E. Murphy
RE: Gamer v. Memphis Police Depanmem 0743-27
DATE: April 21, 1993
Please prepare a check payable to cooperating attorney, Anoe Brownlee Gulljck in
the amount of $1,000, to cover attorneys fees and costs in connection with the Sixth Circuit
argument in this case.
cc: Charles Stephen Ralston
PHONE 901-15715-8702
FAX 901-15715-8717
May 13, 1993
Mr. Clyde Murphy
Attorney at Law
ANNE BROWNLEE GULLICK
ATTOIINIIEY AT LAW
ONIE MIEMPHIS PLACIE
aoo JIEFFIERSON AVIE., SUITIE 900
MIEMPHIS, TN 38103-2340
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson st., 16th Floor
New York, NY 10013
RE: Garner v. Memphis Police Dept .• et al
Dear Mr. Murphy:
ALSO UCl!!:NSED
IN MISSISSIPPI
I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for consenting to my
arguing to the Sixth Circuit in the above-styled case. I believe
it went very well for the appellant's case, and I expect a decision
rather quickly.
The panel consisted of Judge Merritt who had been on Garner I and
Garner II. Judge Keith who had been on Garner II. and one other
judge whose name I cannot recall. I opened the argument by stating
that all the analysis of the facts and law applicable in the appeal
pointed only to one issue - that being a mandate from the Supreme
Court and the district court's failure to follow. Judge Merritt
then interrupted me and noted that the panel was in no need of any
refresher on the facts of this case. He spoke almost with an
incredulous tone that this case was before him again, then he
stated that he believed that the Beam case had basically decided
the issue of retroactivity. I, of course, agreed and went directly
into the relief we were requesting. The judges questioned me a
little on that, and I hammered home ~he uncontroverted state of the
record, the antiquity of the litigation, and the need to avoid
further delay and expense.
Henry Klein, arguing for the city, did not have it so easy from the
judges. They questioned him quite thoroughly. In fact, the judge
whose name escapes me asked Klein if he had taken advantage of the
settlement techniques of the circuit. Judge Merritt asked Klein
what he thought of our suggestion that the Sixth Circuit issue a
judgment on the liability question. Klein hesitated and stumbled,
but admitted that he could not add to the record if it was
remanded. Klein also attempted to argue that since cert was denied
in carter, then the supreme court had not spoken to the
retroactivity of Garner. However, on rebuttal I pointed out that
the Supreme Court, by its mandate, in Garner had, indeed, answered
Mr. Clyde Murphy
Re: Garner v. City of Memphis
Date: May 13, 1993
Page 2 of 2
the question. Judge Merritt nodded his head in agreement.
Inter7stingly, Judge Merritt wrote the dissent with Judge Keith
agreeing in Carter. Since Beam, that dissent is basically the law
now, and I attempted to model my arguments after that dissent.
I expect that we will have a decision in a relatively short period
of time. The judges certainly d i d not appear to be having a
struggle with the issues.
I have also enclose d copies of my receipts for my expenses involved
in the argument. I need to retain the originals for my accounting
purposes. After the argument in Cincinnati, I left for a week's
vacation in Washington, D. c. So even though the rental car receipt
shows an expenditure for two weeks, I have assessed the costs as if
I would have rented and returned it in three days. The per diem
cost is shown on the receipts. The total of the receipts is
$ 307.26.
Further cost involved with the preparation of the argument included
charges for westlaw time in the amount of $379.35. See attached
receipt.
Also, I netted a total of 15 hours at $50 an hour in preparation
for the argument. consequently, the remaining $313. 39 of the $1000
advance will be applied to that time as previously agreed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Again,
thank you for the opportunity to represent Mr. Garner on appeal.
I look forward to a favorable decision.
tiJ:~
Anne Brownlee Gullick
Enclosure
- ----~-:)-!
'·· - -
.. oe 1
j. :
' ---- ------~---
I RATE
I
I ~ I /_ I CIO
.
- ' ARV DEP
J -- '
ARV .
-
ClERK
- --·· ' . . -· ,, . I .. -
r . . '' ; -
.. . ' .
'
MEMO DATE REFERENCE CHARGES CREDITS BALANCE PREVIOUS BALAN - - PICK•UP
::. , - : .. . . -
.
-
I
. -
I -· - J -
J .
: ... ·-.
.,
'
.
--. -
, .. - :
c- -.... ~ :. . - - ~~ _.
. '- - - -- I
Y - --. - y . ' ·:· . ..., - - .. - . - . -:: -,
_, . . . .. - ' - ' - -.,. . -- . ..
. .,
-
""-
~ ~~urriott.
STREET ~ HO'l"b.'>• RO,O RT-,
CITY ~
ATTENTION STATE ZIP
-
- iiesr NAME AND HOME-ADDA~ss-
- •'" ll,..
I MOO Al AQIW( "(:Jf, M)
,
I ~
' 1------------'-..:.;..-'---'----------''--' ';__''_l""l'---------'--•-'•i-_'_"..,.'l---,--------i----l • A!~l[P ,. • . ... '· I t,· ,. •1
@~.1.~m2
- - - - - ~
I
I
I
I f . . r, •· • : , f,
l ~:;•.'Hl'•!t:.l!l ~ I·'. ,. I
, • • • ,, , • : ,. t Ji ••• t ! , '
I i 1;·:1>u•1 s11 1 m I . l•d •• •
, L. r • ''! I .. ( l, I 1 1 , ·-• • , t
1 ! I • ' ( 'It •t . • I t ' _I
' •I•"';: ;o~\! :; t ,11 ,1 1• I,-, rt !-1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 •
I
' I
.. . . • ...
.,
. . ,.
I 1ACRCE tOALl lER'-'S FA011 10 eAt1101 .. cR,~'ENI \l't~i<c,,·, ooe/ ; £tl Cf' 11L1,1.10s Rt NrALAc11:wrn, JACIIH. ,
I r,-l~ ("l..J\.tr•J '1 I i ( / :i11: , tC •'I t -· t•t f.i,
'II. lrft[II ~ • t "URIS
1
"' , r \..
L-- -------L--- ------ - ·-- ·--· -- -- ------ -
$ PO BOXr.>776 I
n lAWERllAL£ fl 3'.'3S
r lf(ii' w "1•~·: I
t I •
I · I
• r
i"t l~ l:\H ;
1;::·:qn::.
't'll 10
trr ,~ , ,
:,1,t'l,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALLRIGHT CASH RECEIPT
_,,_ .. ,"" ... ....._., .... o~:$
,eun&o •• u I A , ,
I BP OIL
j Thank You
I Come Sack Again
j B\:42-M~PJ¼~xES
l. ClV:~·F (~/92 ~ _
"' ~ I
n r. !'\ 'I '=1
' ,I ~ • :.
... ~f\QQ
..,. l -z. l 5
I
i .
I~V~ 131407 fALES TAX t 0.00
~EF:400014100! AUTH :02884! 5 $ 15 .43
-- --- -
.__,
\
- - C'.· • . . .
i T : ... - _.y EXP. DATE
TICKET
SEO
- oZ!~!k.i -5€1 .
0 0::::
... -.~.
::, - :':• ::. a
4 95 • ~.:.~•=!
-.• lVfH.".l':::; ( ,
::- s -?'°· -·= :
•• -----· - --· - • _ l
r ~
J ·i
,~j
.• i
~
\
~
I
,
ACCT# 620- 983 - 332
JERR Y Sl OKF. S
MEMPHIS lN 381 03
066666667
CLI ENI
IINNF . MLGW
77 1565 JfRRY STOKES
TOTAL IINNE . MLGW CHARGES
GARt~ER
771565 JERRY STOKES
TOTAL GARNER CHARGES
J ERRY . MORRIS ANO JACKSON
771565 JERRY STOKES
KEY NUM8F.:R POWER
A WINNING TRAD I TION
WESTLAW CHARGE <;
APR 01 , 93 - APR 30 .93
CLIENT BY USER BY DAY
04/09/ 93
04/22 / 93
04/27/ 93
04/07/93
TOTAL JERRY . MORRIS ANO JACKSON CHARGES
MLGW
7 7 1565 JERRY STOKE S 04/13/93
TOTAL MLGW CHARGES
SH 445 us 6220
77 1565 JERRY STOKES 04/20/93
TOTAL SH 445 US 6220 CHARGES
STOKES . SEIZURE
77 1565 JERRY STOKES 04/26/ 93
TOTAL STOKES.SEIZURE CHARGES
WAL TFR . GARNER
771565 JERRY STOKES 04/02/93
04/20/93
04/2 1/93
04/26/93
TOTAL WALTER . GARNER CHARGES
WALTER . RAll~ER
77 1565 JERRY STOKES 04/19/ 93
04/20/93
TOTAL WALTER.RAINER CHARGES
WALTER . SPEARATION ANO DEBT
771565 JERRY STOKES 04/21/93
TO fAL WALTER.SPEARATION ANO DEBT CHARGES
620983332
INVO I CE DATE INVO I CE NUMBER PAGE
MAY 02,93 21215 3
20473A
sur,1MARY
DAfA BASE
TRANS CONNECT/
LINES
TOTAL
TI ME COMMUNICATION CHARGE •
14:56 15 : 47 282 79.46
14:565 OS 15:475 2825 79.465
10:26 11 : 50 35 52 . 98
4:01 5 : 12
~ 14 : 275 OS 17 :025 35S
7 : 07 7:40 35.31
7:07S OS 7 : 405 OS 35 . 315
3:45 4 : 15 18.79
3:45S OS 4 : 15S OS 18.795
8: 12 8:58 40.80
8: 12S OS 8:58S OS 40.805
2 :04 2:47 10 . 75
2:04S OS 2:47S OS 10.755
18 :20 18: 4 1 90.01
26:39 22: 10 1195 150.25
5:29 5:3 1 26.85
7:28 9:44 ..,..--38~,
57:56S OS 56:06S 1195S C 305.6~ I
16 : 45 17: 16 251 87 . 4 2
22:35 14: 13 254 108 . 09
39:20S OS 31: 29S 505S 195 . 5 1S
7 : 27 8 : 23 37.28
7:27S OS 8:23S OS 37.28S
• INCLUDES APPLICABLE TAXES
LEONARD GREEN
CLERK
Clyde E. Murphy
UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET,.ROOM 538
U.S. POST OFFICE & COURTHOUSE BUILDING
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988
October 22, 1993
Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Anne B. Gullick
Arthur J. Shea
Henry L. Klein
Re: Case No. 92-6196
TELEPHONE
(513) 684-2953
Cleamtee Garner v. Memphis Police Department, et al.
District Court No. 75-00145
Dear Counsel:
The court today announced its decision in the above-styled
case.
A copy of the court's opinion is enclosed and a judgment in
conformity with the opinion has been entered today as required by
Rule 36, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Enclosure
Yours very truly,
Leonard Green, Clerk
By~ /!. ~
(Mrs.) Linda K. Martin
Deputy Clerk
..
LEONARD GREEN
CLERK
Clyde E. Murphy
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FifTH STREET, ROOM 538
U.S. POST OFFICE & COURTHOUSE BUil.DING
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988
November 5, 1993
Walter Lee Bailey, Jr.
Anne B . Gullick
Arthur J. Shea
Henry L. Klein
Re: case No. 92-6196
TELEPHONE
(513) 684-2953
Cleamtee Garner v. Memphis Police Department, et al.
District Court No. 75-00145
Dear Counsel :
Enclosed are corrected copies of pages from the decision
originally sent to you on October 22, 1993 . Please make
corrections in your publi~he d v e rsicn as ir.di~ated on page 15 ,
lines 19 and 20; page 21, lines 1 and 2 from the bottom; and page
22, lines 1 and 2 .
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Odell Horton
Robert R . DiTrolio, Clerk
Legal Resource Center
Yours very truly,
Leonard Green, Clerk
By ~ /!. ~
(Mrs.) Linda K. Martin
Deputy Clerk
West Publishing Company
Commerce Clearing House, Inc.
Bureau of National Affairs
Ms. Vickie Long
Publishers & Printers
,.
~ No. 92~196 Garr,er v. Memphis Police Dept., et al. ts
SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The
majority reverses the district court's decision and grants
summary judgment in favor of Gamer on the issue of
liability. Because I believe that the majority's actions
ignore the facts of this case and the law of this circuit, I
must respectfully dissent.
I.
This case began eighteen years ago when Officer
Hymon, a young black policeman with the Memphis
Police Department, shot and killed Edward Gamer,
another young black man who, though unarmed, was
attempting to avoid arrest for the burglary he had just
committed. Officer Hyman's decision, made in a split
second • and under potentially-threatening conditions, has
been evaluated and re-evaluated in courtrooms from the
Western District of Tennessee to the United States
Supreme Court.
This litigation has spanned and, in some instances,
created many of the most profound changes in the law
surrounding actions brought under .fflc Civi:l Rights Act of 0
~U.S.C. § 1983. In 1975, when this suit was
'f ~1.::1~ . ..'~~as absolutely clear that the City and the Police
Department, the only remaining defendants in this case,
" could not even be sued under § 1983. 1 Moreover, it was
virtually undisputed that a police officer could use all
reasonably necessary force, including deadly force, to
stop a fleeing felon. The Tennessee legislature adopted
the common law "fleeing felon" rule before the tum of
this century, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-108, and that
1.stt Mon~ v. Pa,x, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) (munici~lities not
•penoos• within the meaning of § 1983), ovurukd by Monell v.
Dq,artmn11 of Social Sn-viC'f!S, 436 lJ.S. 658 (1978). Originally, the
City and the Department, not amenable to suit under § 1983, were
sued directly under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the
general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in a Bi\lens-style
action. Stt Bi\lens v. Six Unknown NarruxJ A.genls, 403 U.S. 388
(1971 ).
r No. 92-6196 Garner v. Memphis Police Dt/Jt., et al. 21
damages for that deprivation. On this issue, the Supreme
Court carefully expressed no opinion and thus there is
nothing to be given •retroactive effect.• In Carter, on the
other hand, this court squarely held that such liability
could not be imposed. The majority's cryptic warning,
therefore, that •cnJeither this court nor the district court is
free to reexamine the Supreme Court's ruling,• is
misdirected. It is the majority that should take care not to
attribute to the Supreme Court rulings it has not made.
To be sure, a panel of this court in Gamer II opined
that the City's and the Department's reliance was
irrelevant. Gamer II, 710 F.2d at 248-49. Carter,
however, disavowed this dicta and held that a City's good
faith reliance on the fleeing felon rule prior to the
Supreme Court's decision in Gamer precludes liability for
pre-Gamer shootings. Therefore, I would hold that the
district court correctly applied Carter to resolve this case
in favor of the City and the Department. The majority
errs, in my view, by refusing to give Carter controlling
effect.
II.
Cleamtee Garner has persuaded the highest court in the
land to declare, without equivocation, that his son died in
violation of some of this county's most deeply-held
principles. Just as fundamental, however, is the principle
upon which this court relied in Caner. it is simply not
fair, and not in keeping with the letter, the purpose or the
intent of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to hold the City and the
Department liable in damages for young Garner's death
when they could not have known that the actions of its
officers were unconstitutional. The detennination that the
death of Mr. Garner's son was unconstitutional is, and
must be, a separate question from whether the citizens of
Memphis must compensate that tragedy under§ 1983.
If Mr. Gamer's lega:I fees aie properly awarded under O'
his ple8dings and the applicable law, let him collect them; O""
r
22 Garner v. Memphis Police Dept., et al. No. 92-6196 ~
'C) and let the City aod the Department pay, Fer new,
bo11.•e1.s•er, this ea:1e !hettld M eYer. ----a
I would affirm the district court's judgment in favor of
the City and the Department and, therefore, respectfully
dissent.
, UNITED STATES COURT OF APP .. A. s
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD GREEN
CLERK
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 538
U.S. POST OFFICE & COURT HOUSE BUILDING
CINCINNA Tl. OHIO 45202-3988
Henry L. Klein
Apperson , Crump, Duzane & Maxwell
45 Second Street
Suite 2110 One Commerce Square
Memphis, TN 38103
RE: 92-6196
Garner vs. Memphis Police Dept
District Court No. 75-00145
Dear Mr. Klein:
December 7, 1993
TELEPHONE
(513)684-2953
Enclosed is a copy of an order which was entered today in the above
styled case.
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Walter Lee Bailey Jr.
Ms. Anne B. Gullick
Mr. Clyde E . Murphy
Mr. Arthur J. Shea
~truly yours,
v ~G~
(Mrs.) Peggy Eshman
Administrative Assistant
No. 92-6196
UNlTED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CLEAMTEE GARNER, FATHER AND NEXT-OF-KIN OF
EDWARD EUGENE GARNER, A DECEASED MINOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF MEMPHIS,
TENNESSEE,
Defendants-A ppellees,
WYETH CHANDLER, MAYOR OF MEMPHIS, ET AL..
Defendants.
FILED
DEC O 7 1993
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BEFORE: MERRITT, Chief Judge; KEITH and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges.
The court having received a petition for rehearing en bane, and the petition having been
circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court,
and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en bane, the
petition for rehearing has been referred to the original hearing panel.
The panel has further reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues
raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the
case. Accordingly, the petition is denied. Judge Suhrheinrich would grant rehearing for the
reasons stated in his dissent.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
~n, Clerk ~
Mr. Clyde E. Murphy
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, NY 10013 [||15fd215f-3d33-40c5-87cc-7ecf64dc9b97||]