Chen v. ICS Protective Servs.

1

SHUGUANG CHEN, Plaintiff, v. ICS PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

No. 23-cv-01253 (DLF)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 5, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shuguang Chen brings this action against ICS Protective Services (“ICS”), Keith Moyler, and a John Doe defendant^[1] for injuries he sustained protesting outside of the Chinese Embassy. Before the Court is the defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 13. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion.

I. BACKGROUND^[2]

Chen is a citizen of the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Compl. ¶ 7, Dkt. 1. His relationship with the Chinese government soured after he brought a lawsuit in 1997 to recover approximately $812,000 USD lost in a loan that Chen extended to a business acquaintance. Id. ¶ 14. Despite prevailing in his lawsuit in China Chen alleges that he never recovered his financial assets and Chinese judicial officials instead “pocketed the money.” Id. ¶ 16. He spent over 20 years seeking redress from the Chinese court system and other governmental bodies. Id. Because he has “dedicated his life to protesting judicial corruption,” Chen asserts that he “became what in the PRC is known as a ‘petitioner,' that is someone who petitions the [Chinese] government . . . for redress of grievances.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 17.

In 2011, Chen immigrated to the United States. Id. ¶ 17. From 2019 to 2021, he engaged in a “live-in and peaceful protest” in a tent erected across the street from the Chinese Embassy in the District of Columbia. He regularly protests “on the sidewalk adjacent to” the Embassy, including by using “a bullhorn to broadcast his grievances.” Id. ¶¶ 20-21.

ICS is a security company that provides “24/7 private security” for the Chinese Embassy and its staff. Id. ¶¶ 8, 22. ICS has served the Embassy since 2003. Id. ¶ 8. ICS guards “frequently observe[]” “victims of [Chinese] human rights abuse and judicial corruption” protest in front of the Embassy. Id. Chen alleges that ICS guards “got to know him by observing him protest for years” and “knew that he was a fearless but also harmless non-violent protestor.” Id. ¶¶ 22, 24.

This suit arises from altercations between Chen and ICS guards that occurred on May 4, and June 25, 2022. According to Chen, on May 4, when he was “peacefully protesting outside of the ambassador's residence,” John Doe, an ICS security guard, “inexplicably and abruptly turned violent” on Chen. Id. ¶ 25. Chen alleges that Doe “suddenly approached him and aggressively shined his flashlight into his eyes.” Id. Doe allegedly then, without provocation, “struck [Chen] on his chest and threatened to kill [Chen].” Id. Chen asserts that Doe stated, “Touch me mother fucker! Don't touch me, bitch. I will fucking kill you.” Id. Chen recorded the interaction on his cell phone, and the complaint includes a screenshot of Doe standing and pointing his flashlight at Chen's eye level. Id. ¶ 25. For several weeks after the interaction, Chen allegedly experienced “fatigue, headaches, irritated eyes, and sensitivity to light,” as well as “fear and emotional distress.” Id. ¶ 25.

On June 25, Chen had another altercation with ICS guard Keith Moyler while he was protesting with his bullhorn “on the sidewalk near the ambassador's residence.” Id. ¶ 28. That day, Chen was fitted with a bodycam and a cell phone. Id. As he watched then-Chinese Ambassador Qin Gang play tennis outside, he aimed his bullhorn at the court. Suddenly, Minister Xu Xueyan-a female “high-ranking member” the Chinese diplomatic mission-approached him. Id. A screenshot from his bodycam video shows Minister Xu with her arms outstretched toward his cell phone, which he was holding above his head. Id. Minister Xu then allegedly “grabbed and threw [his] cell phone . . . onto the middle of the road” while Moyler watched the interaction between Chen and Minister Xu from the sidewalk. Id. ¶ 28. Chen then “ran into the street to pick up his cell phone.” Id. ¶ 29. Another screenshot from his bodycam shows Moyler standing over him as he bent down to retrieve his cell phone in the middle of the road. Id. ¶ 29. Moyler then returned to the sidewalk to “exchange[] a few words with Xu.” Id. ¶ 30.

After “conferring” with Minister Xu, Moyler proceeded to arrest Chen. Id. According to Chen, Moyler “caused him to trip and the right side of his head, shoulder, elbow, and pelvis hit the ground.” Id. ¶ 31. Moyler then “forcefully contorted [Chen's] arms behind his back and succeeded in subduing [him] to the ground.” Id. After calling U.S. Secret Service officers to the scene, Moyler allegedly sat on Chen's torso for “nearly ten minutes, periodically striking at his ribs and shoulder” while he was “lying face down on the ground with his hand forced behind his back.” Id. Moyler also handcuffed him during the waiting period. Id. Upon the arrival of Secret Service, Moyler allegedly provided false statements to the officers, claiming that Chen “assaulted . . . both [Minister Xu and Moyler].” Id. ¶ 33. Moyler also provided a written statement, which stated that he had arrested Chen because “he witnessed [Chen] grab Xu's hand and snatch her phone, while moving aggressively towards Xu.” Chen alleges that, in reality, Minister Xu was the aggressor who grabbed his phone. Id. According to Chen, Moyler's statement also included the false assertion that Chen “continued actively resisting arrest” after he “was already subdued and forced to the ground.” Id. Chen was arrested and detained at the D.C. Central Detention Facility for almost two days. Id. ¶ 35.

Chen's complaint includes photographs of physical injuries that he sustained in the altercation with Moyler. The photographs, taken after his release from detention approximately 45 hours after the incident, show a quarter-sized scab on his knee, a quarter-sized scab surrounded by scrapes on his inner elbow, two fingernail-sized scabs on his upper temple and cheekbone, a light pink thumb-sized bruise on his wrist, and multiple hairline scrapes on his shoulder, upper forearm, and armpit. Id. ¶ 35. Chen alleges that these injuries “persisted for weeks” after his arrest and that the “pain from the physical injuries he sustained persists to this day.” Id. ¶¶ 34, 37.

Chen was charged and prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for assault on a police officer, simple assault on Minister Xu, and resisting arrest. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. But the charges were later dropped. Id. ¶ 36. Chen alleges that the experience of being arrested and assaulted by Moyer, and of being “wrongfully prosecuted for offenses he did not commit[,] was humiliating and traumatizing.” Id. ¶ 37.

On May 3, 2023, Chen filed suit against the defendants alleging eight counts: assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotion distress (“IIED”), prejudice-motivated injury under D.C. Code § 22-3704, false arrest and false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and negligent training and supervision. The defendants move to dismiss all but the assault and battery counts for failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Mot. to Dismiss at 1.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain factual matter sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facially plausible claim is one that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This standard does not amount to a specific probability requirement, but it does require “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”). A complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, but alleging facts that are “merely consistent with a defendant's liability . . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, well-pleaded factual allegations are “entitled to [an] assumption of truth,” id. at 679, and the court construes the complaint “in favor of the plaintiff, who must be granted the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged,” Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 476 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). But the Court need not accept “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” nor an inference unsupported by the facts alleged in the pleadings. Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). An “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” is not credited; likewise, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Ultimately, “[determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider only the complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, and judicially noticeable materials. EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621,...