Brown v. Mayor of Baltimore City

1

TIMOTHY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, et al., Dpfpndcintc

Civil Action No. GLR-23-155

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 16, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

George L. Russell, III United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“Baltimore City”) Baltimore City Police Department (“BPD”), and Former Police Commissioner Dean Palmere's (collectively “City Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 41); Defendants Sergeant Keith Gladstone, Detective Michael O'Sullivan, Officer Kenneth Patzman, Detective Avraham Tasher, and Detective Antonio Saunders' (collectively “Officer Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 42); and Defendant Detective Robert Hankard's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 47). The Motions are ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2023). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motions in part and deny them in part.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Factual Background

This matter concerns the alleged unconstitutional arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff Timothy Brown by BPD officers, at least some of whom were associated with the Gun Trace Task Force (“GTTF”). (Am. Compl. at 3, ECF No. 33).^[2] On February 12, 2014, Defendants obtained and executed a search warrant at Brown's home in Baltimore. (Am. Compl. ¶ 19). Brown lived there with his mother, and neither were home at the time. (Id. ¶ 20). Brown's mother returned about forty-five minutes after Defendants entered the house, and she was placed under arrest and charged with narcotics and firearm possession. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22). Those charges were eventually dropped. (Id. ¶ 22).

On March 26, 2014, Brown was arrested on a warrant and charged with over a dozen counts related to firearm and narcotics use and possession. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 26). Since his arrest, Brown has averred that the drugs and guns found by Defendants did not belong to him, and that Officer Defendants and Hankard (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) planted the evidence in his home. (Id. at 3, ¶ 25). Brown alleges that Individual Defendants “knowingly lied” about the gun and drugs in “charging documents and other police records in an effort to falsely prosecute and falsely convict [Brown].” (Id. ¶ 37).

Brown understood, “based on statements previously made to him by one or more of the defendant officers,” that if he refused to plead guilty, Individual Defendants would retaliate by testifying against him at trial and arresting his mother. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29). As a result of these threats, Brown pled guilty to one count of firearm possession and one count of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. (Id. ¶ 29). Brown was sentenced to nine years in prison, and he was released in 2019 after serving five years. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 33). He suffered mental anguish, pain and suffering, and financial losses due to his unlawful incarceration. (Id. ¶ 41).

On January 21, 2020, the state of Maryland filed an amended motion to vacate judgment. (Id. ¶ 34). In the motion, the state said that Gladstone, after a separate incident, had pled guilty to conspiring with GTTF officers to deprive an individual of his civil rights by intentionally presenting false evidence. (Id.). Hankard was also convicted of a crime related to civil rights violations, (id. ¶ 61), and Saunders “is on the Baltimore City State's Attorney's list of Baltimore Police officers with integrity issues,” (id. ¶ 35). The Circuit Court for Baltimore City vacated Brown's conviction and entered a disposition of nolle prosequi on all charges on March 10, 2020. (Id. at 26 n.2, ¶ 119).

Brown alleges that Individual Defendants planted evidence in his home as part of BPD's “pattern or practice” of malicious prosecution. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 39, 166). He also says that Defendants acted with malice, and that they abused their power in a way that shocks the conscience. (Id. ¶¶ 42-50). At all times, Individual Defendants acted within the scope of their employment with BPD. (Id. ¶ 51). City Defendants “not only condoned, but encouraged, rewarded, and protected” Individual Defendants' actions. (Id. ¶ 57). Palmere, as BPD's former Commissioner, failed to enact or enforce policies to ensure that officers were not acting illegally to deprive citizens of their rights, and he also personally coached officers on providing testimony in court to shield themselves from criminal charges. (Id. ¶¶ 58-61). Further, BPD leadership “created a culture which encouraged officers to make as many arrests as possible,” irrespective of the constitutionality of those arrests. (Id. ¶¶ 81, 101). BPD also purposely discouraged members of the public from filing complaints against officers, delayed investigations, and improperly classified complaints to mask misconduct. (Id. ¶ 82).

On August 10, 2016, the United States Department of Justice released a report (the “DOJ Report”) summarizing “the widespread corruption and abuse within BPD.” (Id. ¶ 62). The DOJ concluded that there is reasonable cause to believe that BPD engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional stops, searches, and arrests, using excessive force, and retaliating against people engaged in constitutionally-protected expression. (Id. ¶ 63). The DOJ found that BPD's unlawful actions had a disproportionate effect on African Americans, and Brown alleges that this disparity amounted to racial discrimination. (Id. ¶ 64). Finally, the DOJ found that BPD had “fail[ed] to use adequate policies, training, supervision, data collection, analysis, and accountability systems,” (id. ¶ 65), and that BPD supervisors rarely conducted reviews of arrests to assess whether they conformed to constitutional standards, (id. ¶ 78).

Brown alleges that City Defendants were aware of these issues prior to his 2014 arrest because in June 2006, the ACLU of Maryland filed a lawsuit alleging that BPD had not trained its officers properly, and that they made thousands of illegal arrests without probable cause as a result. (Id. ¶ 69). That lawsuit settled in 2010, but an independent auditor later found that BPD was not in compliance with “more than half of the conditions of the [settlement] agreement.” (Id. ¶¶ 70-71). Further, state data shows that BPD made over 10,000 arrests between 2010 and July 2015 that resulted in no charges, and the State's Attorney's Office specifically found that 1,983 of those arrests lacked probable cause. (Id. ¶ 75).

B. Procedural History

Brown filed his original Complaint on January 20, 2023 against the aforementioned Defendants, as well as Detective Derrick Brown^[3]and Officer Carmine Vignola.^[4] (ECF No. 1). He later filed an Amended Complaint on June 9, 2023 against Defendants and Derrick Brown. (ECF No. 33). Brown makes the following claims in the Amended Complaint: (1) malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment against Individual Defendants (Count I); malicious prosecution under § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment against Individual Defendants (Count II);^[5]malicious prosecution under Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights against all Defendants (Count III); common law malicious prosecution against all Defendants (Count IV); negligent training, supervision, and retention against City Defendants (Count V); a Fourth Amendment Monell claim for pattern or practice of malicious prosecution against Baltimore City (Count VI); a Fourteenth Amendment Monell claim for pattern or practice of malicious prosecution against Baltimore City (Count VII); an Article 24 and 26 Longtin claim for malicious prosecution against Baltimore City (Count VIII); and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against all Defendants (Count IX). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 113-190). He seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. (Id. ¶ 122).

Both City Defendants and Officer Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss on June 30, 2023. (ECF Nos. 41, 42). Brown filed Oppositions on July 21, 2023 and July 28, 2023, respectively. (ECF Nos. 48, 52). BPD filed a Reply on August 11, 2023, (ECF No. 62), and Officer Defendants filed a Reply on September 5, 2023, (ECF No. 64). As for Hankard, he filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 14, 2023. (ECF No. 47). Brown filed an Opposition on July 28, 2023, (ECF No. 52), and Hankard filed a Reply on August 25, 2023, (ECF No. 63).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to “test[] the sufficiency of a complaint,” not to “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” King v Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999)). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), or does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Though the plaintiff is not required to forecast evidence to prove the elements of the claim, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish each element. Goss v. Bank of Am., N.A., 917 F.Supp.2d 445, 449 (D.Md. 2013) (quoting Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012)), aff'...