Jackson v. Dist. of Columbia

1

MARK JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-1475 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 11, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RE DOCUMENT NO.: 45

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Granting Defendant Glenn Lombardini's Motion for Summary Judgment

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mark Jackson sued Officer Glenn Lombardini and the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various common law tort theories for injuries arising from two mid-2018 arrests. Jackson conceded in response to a motion to dismiss that only his excessive force claim against Officer Lombardini remains viable. Officer Lombardini now moves for summary judgment on the theory that he is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions during each arrest. Because there was no on-point caselaw placing the unlawfulness of Officer Lombardini's actions beyond debate at the time of the arrests, the Court grants him qualified immunity.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This lawsuit arises from two separate arrests approximately three weeks apart. The parties agree on many of these facts, while others can be clearly discerned from body-worn camera (“BWC”) and security footage. To the extent possible, the Court will “view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape[s].” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007). Where issues of fact exist, the Court views them in the light most favorable to Jackson. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970)).

1. The Arrest on April 19, 2018

On April 19, 2018, Officer Lombardini was on bike patrol in eastern Washington, D.C. Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (“DSMF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 45-1; see generally April BWC Footage, Ex. 2 to Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 45-3. As Officer Lombardini passed a shopping center, he spotted Jackson urinating next to a large industrial dumpster, which abutted and was visible from the sidewalk. DSMF ¶¶ 2-3. Jackson turned his head to look at Officer Lombardini, waived his hand in the officer's direction, and continued urinating.^[1] Surveillance Video at 16:41:21-27, Ex. 3 to Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 45-4. Officer Lombardini approached Jackson from behind and pressed him against the dumpster, causing his face to make brief contact with the dumpster. DSMF ¶ 4; April BWC Footage at 20:40:35-44; Surveillance Video at 16:41:31-36.

Officer Lombardini then instructed Jackson to “Put your hands behind your back,” to which Jackson responded, “For what?”^[2] April BWC Footage at 20:41:19-22. Officer Lombardini explained, “‘cause I said so,” and placed Jackson's right hand behind his back. Id. at 20:41:22-29. He then grabbed Jackson's left hand and placed it behind Jackson's back, as well, stating, “Put your hands behind your back, that's all I'm asking you.” Id. at 20:41:29-34.

Officer Lombardini then pushed on Jackson's upper back, repeatedly telling him to “lean forward.” Id. at 20:41:29-34. Jackson told Officer Lombardini, “Stop pushing my face though man. You got one more second to push me and I'm gonna get you f***ed. I swear to God on my grandmother's grave that you got one more time to push me.” Id. at 20:41:38-51. After Officer Lombardini ordered a bystander to back up, id. at 20:41:49-55, he again instructed Jackson to “Lean forward so I can put the cuffs on you,” id. at 20:42:00-02.

At this point, Officer Lombardini's BWC was pushed up against Jackson's coat, and the events are not fully visible. It is clear, however, that Jackson pulled his left arm out of Officer Lombardini's hand, id. at 20:42:05-06, and said, “I ought to knock you out. That's what I should do,” id. at 20:42:09-12. Officer Lombardini was still the lone officer on scene at this time. DSMF ¶ 10. Officer Lombardini responded, “Now you are going for threatening as well.” April BWC Footage at 20:42:12-16. He tackled Jackson to the ground, placing his knee on Jackson's upper back for a few seconds.^[3] Id. at 20:42:16-19. Another officer arrived and assisted Officer Lombardini to place Jackson into handcuffs. Id. at 20:42:22-40.^[4] The officers applied no additional force and soon helped Jackson to his feet. Id. at 20:42:53-56. In total, Jackson spent approximately 30 seconds on the ground. Id. at 20:42:19-55. The arrest report states that Jackson was placed under arrest for urinating in public, threats to do bodily harm, and resisting arrest. April Arrest Report at 3, ECF No. 45-2. It additionally states that Jackson was treated by first responders and transported to Howard Hospital. Id.

2. The Arrest on May 8, 2018

On May 8, 2018, Officer Lombardini was again on bike patrol when he approached a building, where he observed what he believed to be an open beer can in a plastic bag Jackson was holding. DSMF ¶¶ 16-18. Officer Lombardini instructed Jackson to remove the item from the bag, which turned out to be a bottle of vodka. Id. ¶ 20. Jackson passed the bottle to another person, who then walked away. Id. ¶¶ 19-21. Officer Lombardini held onto the back of Jackson's shirt and walked him to a set of stairs at the apartment building. Id. ¶ 22. Jackson objected that he had not been drinking. May 8 BWC, Ex. 4 to Def.'s Mot. at 21:39:18-52, ECF No. 45-5.

After a verbal exchange, Officer Lombardini decided to arrest Jackson, telling him multiple times to turn around, but Jackson refused to do so.^[5] DSMF ¶ 23. Jackson said, “this your second time” and repeated “don't touch me.” May 8 BWC at 21:40:27-35. Officer Lombardini then pushed Jackson into the stair railing, which Jackson grabbed on to. Id. at 21:40:41-52. He instructed Jackson to “let go of the pole.” Id. at 21:40:51-53. The officer cuffed Jackson's left wrist and pulled it behind his back. Id. at 21:40:55-21:41:02. He instructed Jackson, “put your other hand behind your back,” and pushed Jackson against a brick wall before eventually cuffing his right wrist, as well. Id. at 21:41:01-28. When Officer Lombardini forced Jackson's arm behind his back, Jackson's elbow was dislocated. DSMF ¶ 30.

Officer Lombardini then sat Jackson on the steps, and other officers arrived. May 8 BWC at 21:41:31-34. The arrest report states that Jackson was placed under arrest for possession of an open container and resisting arrest, and that he was transported to a hospital for treatment. May Arrest Report at 3, ECF No. 45-6.

B. Procedural Background

On April 5, 2021, Jackson filed a civil complaint against Officer Lombardini and the District of Columbia in the Superior Court. See Compl. He asserted excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Lombardini in his official and individual capacities, as well as against the District of Columbia. Compl. ¶¶ 24-33. He also asserted common law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, negligent training, and general negligence for which the District of Columbia was liable under a theory of respondeat superior. Compl. ¶¶ 34-62. The District removed the case to this Court. See Notice of Removal ¶ 3, ECF No. 1. On June 28, 2021, Officer Lombardini and the District moved to dismiss all claims other than the § 1983 claim against Officer Lombardini in his individual capacity. ECF No. 7. On March 21, 2022, Jackson conceded the arguments raised in the motion and agreed that those claims should be dismissed. ECF No. 28. As such, only the § 1983 excessive force claim against Officer Lombardini in his individual capacity remains.

Officer Lombardini now moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See generally Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 45. Jackson opposes this motion, ECF No. 48, and following Officer Lombardini's reply, ECF No. 50, the Court is ready to rule.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment may be granted when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it is capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is “genuine” if sufficient evidence exists such that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.; see Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.

The principal purpose of summary judgment is to streamline litigation by disposing of factually unsupported claims or defenses and determining whether there is a genuine need for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A) (noting that the movant may cite to “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, . . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”). In response, the non-moving party must similarly designate specific facts in the record that reveal a genuine issue that is suitable for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. On a motion for summary judgment, the court must “eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence,” Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and all underlying facts and inferences must be analyzed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Nevertheless, conclusory assertions offered without any evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court first reviews the legal principles underlying qualified immunity. The Court next examines the April 19, 2018, arrest separately considering Officer Lombardini's actions before and after the...