Case Law Olaniyi v. Dist. of Columbia

Olaniyi v. Dist. of Columbia

Document Cited Authorities (32) Cited in (6) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David Finley Williams, Ryan C. Craig, Anthony Joseph Jay, III, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Wayne C. Beyer, Office of Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff David Olabayo Olaniyi brings this action against the District of Columbia (District) and the United States, asserting constitutional and common law claims arising from his detention in March of 2003, and a separate incident involving a traffic stop in January of 2004. See generally Second Amended Complaint (“2d Am. Compl.”); Complaint (“United States Compl.”). 1 Currently before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by the District and the United States. Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,2 the Court concludes for the following reasons that the defendants' motions must be granted.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts

Many of Olaniyi's claims have already been dismissed by the Court. See Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 416 F.Supp.2d 43, 59–60 (D.D.C.2006); Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 763 F.Supp.2d 70, 78 (D.D.C.2011). Olaniyi's remaining claims in this case arise from the following two events: the alleged forcible injection of Olaniyi by District personnel with an unknown drug in March of 2003, and a traffic stop conducted by the United States Capitol Police (“Capitol Police”) in January of 2004. The following facts recounting these two events are undisputed unless otherwise noted, and are presented in the light most favorable to Olaniyi.

1. The March 2003 Forcible Injection

Olaniyi, a native of Nigeria, describes himself as “an artist, philosopher, scholar, performer, and director.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 3. On March 6, 2003, Olaniyi and his now-wife, Reena Patel Olaniyi (Patel), visited the United States Capitol Building “to tour and conduct research for his stage play.” Id. ¶¶ 65–66. Olaniyi was wearing “an artistic garment that he made out of cardboard, empty bottles, newspaper, a book, and other common materials secured with duct tape.” Pl.'s Response to District's Facts ¶ 1. He also carried a stone sculpture.” Id. Upon entering the Capitol Building with this paraphernalia, Olaniyi “began to sing and dance,” which “attracted the attention of the Capitol Police.” District's Facts ¶¶ 2–3. The Capitol Police “detained and thereafter arrested [Olaniyi] and searched his car on suspicion that he was going to bomb the Capitol.” Id. ¶ 3. “Olaniyi appeared before a Federal Magistrate Judge on the morning of March 7, 2003, who held him over until March 10, 2003.” Id. ¶ 4.

Olaniyi was detained at the Mental Health Unit of the District of Columbia Jail (D.C. Jail) during the period of his detention under the Magistrate Judge's order. Id. ¶ 5; Pl's Response to District's Facts ¶ 5. According to Olaniyi, at some point during his detention at the D.C. Jail, he was forcibly injected with a drug that caused him to lose consciousness. SeePl.'s District Opp'n, Exhibit (“Ex.”) D (Deposition of Olabayo David Olaniyi (“Olaniyi Dep.”)) at 187:4–190:25, 196:1–3. Specifically, he claims that a D.C. Jail employee gave him an injection in his left arm while a guard restrained him, despite his verbal objections to receiving the injection. See id. Olaniyi maintains that prior to giving him the injection [t]hey told [him] they were treating [him] for diabetes,” which they claimed had been detected by testing conducted during his detention. Id. at 194:10–13. Olaniyi explained that he did not have diabetes, but they nonetheless administered the injection. See id. at 194:13–16. The medical personnel did not tell Olaniyi what drug they used, and Olaniyi does not know what it was. See id. at 190:10–17. Olaniyi claims that “when the injection was given, things calm[ed] down, and ... everything just whitewashed out.” Id. at 190:24–25. He then “lost consciousness.” Id. at 198:20–23. Olaniyi's next memory is waking up in his jail cell “the following morning.” Id. at 196:3. Olaniyi acknowledges that no medical record exists documenting the injection, attributing the lack of documentation to deficient record-keeping practices at the D.C. Jail. See Pl.'s Response to District's Facts ¶ 34. The District denies that this incident occurred, asserting that “Olaniyi was tested, but not treated[,] for diabetes.” District's Facts ¶ 25.

On March 10, 2003, federal prosecutors charged Olaniyi and Patel with “False Bomb Threats, Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds, Aiding and Abetting, and Assault or Threatened Assault.” Id. ¶ 6. Olaniyi was then released from the D.C. Jail on March 11, 2003. District's Facts ¶ 3 1. The government dismissed all charges against Olaniyi and Patel in August of 2003. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 78.

2. The January 2004 Traffic Stop

On January 20, 2004, Olaniyi, his two minor children, and Patel traveled to the District from Michigan. United States's Facts ¶¶ 1–2. The purpose of the trip was to retrieve several pieces of artwork that had been confiscated by the Capitol Police as a result of the March 2003 event at the Capitol Building. United States Compl. ¶ 34. During their cross-country trip, Olaniyi's vehicle, a white van, “accumulated dirt and grime from driving through snow.” United States's Facts ¶ 3. The van's license plate had “accumulated dirt and grime as well.” Id. ¶ 4. In addition to “the dirt covering the windows, the windows themselves were tinted a dark shade.” Id. ¶ 5.

Olaniyi's trip to the District coincided with former President George W. Bush's State of Union Address. Id. ¶ 6. The Capitol Police were accordingly “on high alert and fully staffed” on that date. Id.

Olaniyi claims that while he and his family were riding in his van in the District, a Capitol Police officer, Sergeant Jessica Gissubel,3 signaled him to stop the van in front of Capitol Police headquarters.4See Pl.'s Response to United States's Facts ¶ 7; Pl.'s United States Opp'n, Ex. 1 (Olaniyi Dep.) at 70:6–16. Capitol Police headquarters“is located directly adjacent to the United States Capitol, where the President planned to deliver his State of the Union address.” United States's Facts ¶ 8. Sergeant Gissubel does not recall “being able to read the license plate on [Olaniyi's] van when she initially saw it.” Id. ¶ 10. After pulling the van over, she “radioed headquarters and requested a canine unit and the hazardous device unit to ‘check out [the] vehicle.’ Id. ¶ 11.

“When [Sergeant] Gissubel approached the vehicle, [Olaniyi] asked [for] Detective Joseph DePalma,” id. ¶ 12, one of the officers who had “arrested and jailed” Olaniyi in connection with the March 2003 incident at the Capitol Building, Pl.'s District Opp'n at 7. In response to Olaniyi's request, Sergeant “Gissubel called [Detective] DePalma, advising him of the vehicle in front of [Capitol Police] headquarters and requested his presence on the scene.” United States's Facts ¶ 12. Detective “DePalma arrived on the scene shortly thereafter.” Id. ¶ 13. He spoke to [Olaniyi] and requested that [he] exit the vehicle.” Id. Olaniyi “obliged and began to converse with [Detective] DePalma.” Id.

Olaniyi's van was then searched by the Capitol Police's canine unit. Id. ¶ 14. “Olaniyi's two minor children remained in the van while it was searched by police officers and two canines.” Pl.'s Response to United States's Facts ¶ 13; Pl.'s United States Opp'n, Ex. 1 (Olaniyi Dep.) at 67:13–19. [N]o [p]olice dog growled at or bit any member of [Olaniyi's] family, and the children were not heard crying or screaming in any way during the canine sweep of the van, which last no more than 5 minutes.” United States's Facts ¶ 14. And “the dog[ ] search did not damage [Olaniyi's] vehicle.” Id. The “canine sweep” took only “a few minutes ... because it was the day of the State of the Union Address and the canine officers were extremely busy, given the large number of vehicles they were called upon to sweep.” Id. ¶ 29.

Following the canine sweep, Patel “began recording a video of the events that transpired in front of [Capitol Police] headquarters.” Id. ¶ 15. “On the video recording, [Detective] DePalma audibly tells [Olaniyi] that his license plate was dirty, obscuring an officer's ability to read it.” Id. ¶ 16; see United States's Mem., Ex. 7 (Video of January 20, 2004 Traffic Stop). Detective “DePalma then advised [Olaniyi] that he was likely to be pulled over again if his vehicle remained in the same condition.” United States's Facts ¶ 16. Heeding this advice, Olaniyi “cleaned the partially obscured license plate with a rag while [Detective] DePalma observed.” Id. ¶ 17. Detective DePalma also questioned Olaniyi about his presence in the District, noting that the President's State of the Union Address was scheduled for that evening and asking Olaniyi “are you going to pull a stunt?” Pl.'s United States Opp'n, Ex. 2 (Deposition of Reena Patel Olaniyi (“Patel Dep.”)) at 44:13–45:7. Detective DePalma then asked Olaniyi a series of questions concerning the custody of his children. Id. at 45:21–23. During the encounter, Olaniyi explained that he requested Detective DePalma's presence so that his son could ‘see the man who tried to make me lose my children,’ referring to [Detective] DePalma's ... involvement in [Olaniyi's] arrest in 2003 for false bomb threats.” United States's Facts ¶ 18; see United States's Mem., Ex. 7 (Video of January 20, 2004 Traffic Stop).

After completing “a routine background check for outstanding warrants,” Sergeant Gissubel returned Olaniyi's driver's license “and sent him on his way.” United States's Facts ¶ 19. The Capitol Police did not “issue [Olaniyi] a citation for the incident, nor did they seize any of [Olaniyi's] property.” Id. However, “as [Olaniyi] was leaving the scene of the...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Sacchetti v. Gallaudet Univ.
"... ... GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY and the District of Columbia, Defendants. Civil Action No. 15-455 (RBW) United States District Court, District of Columbia ... an arrest, or upon reasonable suspicion if the detention amounted only to a Terry stop." Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F.Supp.2d 39, 53 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walton, J.) (quoting Zhi Chen v ... Palm Beach Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. , 133 F.3d 816, 821–22 (11th Cir. 1998) ). And, " ‘[d]iscrimination’ under [Title II] ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2013
Yancey v. Dist. of Columbia
"... ... “Each inquiry is separate and serves different purposes.” Id. The order in which a court undertakes each analytical step is not important. See Olaniyi v. Dist. of Columbia, 876 F.Supp.2d 39, 47–53 (D.D.C.2012) (finding no municipal liability based on the plaintiff's failure to establish policy or practice, without deciding whether first prong had been met); Poindexter v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 891 F.Supp.2d 117, 121–23 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2019
Hurd v. Dist. of Columbia
"... ... District of Columbia , 72 F. Supp. 3d 34, 41 (D.D.C. 2014) (requiring evidence that "the municipality's employees engaged in a persistent or regular pattern of conduct that gave rise to the alleged constitutional violations" (emphasis added)); Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F. Supp. 2d 39, 49 (D.D.C. 2012) (concluding that there could be no notice when the only evidence presented was of a "history of general problems" with the District's medical care). While Hurd's briefing focused on Baker 's third- and fourth-prong arguments, 4 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2019
Jiggetts v. Cipullo
"... STEPHEN JIGGETTS, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL CIPULLO and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendants. Civil Action No. 15-1951 (RBW) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ... 2015). Whether an arrest is unlawful depends on whether probable cause existed. See Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F. Supp. 2d 39, 53 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walton, J.) ("The detention of a ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2018
Williams v. City of Birmingham
"... ... that Connick requires "a pattern of highly similar prior constitutional violations"); Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F.Supp.2d 39, 50 (D.D.C. 2012) (applying Connick 's rationale to ... Pa. Oct. 5, 2016) ; Hogan v. Robinson , 2006 WL 1049979, at *5–6, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33531, at *16–17 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ; cf. Santos v. City of Culver City , 228 F. App'x ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Sacchetti v. Gallaudet Univ.
"... ... GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY and the District of Columbia, Defendants. Civil Action No. 15-455 (RBW) United States District Court, District of Columbia ... an arrest, or upon reasonable suspicion if the detention amounted only to a Terry stop." Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F.Supp.2d 39, 53 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walton, J.) (quoting Zhi Chen v ... Palm Beach Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. , 133 F.3d 816, 821–22 (11th Cir. 1998) ). And, " ‘[d]iscrimination’ under [Title II] ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2013
Yancey v. Dist. of Columbia
"... ... “Each inquiry is separate and serves different purposes.” Id. The order in which a court undertakes each analytical step is not important. See Olaniyi v. Dist. of Columbia, 876 F.Supp.2d 39, 47–53 (D.D.C.2012) (finding no municipal liability based on the plaintiff's failure to establish policy or practice, without deciding whether first prong had been met); Poindexter v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 891 F.Supp.2d 117, 121–23 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2019
Hurd v. Dist. of Columbia
"... ... District of Columbia , 72 F. Supp. 3d 34, 41 (D.D.C. 2014) (requiring evidence that "the municipality's employees engaged in a persistent or regular pattern of conduct that gave rise to the alleged constitutional violations" (emphasis added)); Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F. Supp. 2d 39, 49 (D.D.C. 2012) (concluding that there could be no notice when the only evidence presented was of a "history of general problems" with the District's medical care). While Hurd's briefing focused on Baker 's third- and fourth-prong arguments, 4 ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2019
Jiggetts v. Cipullo
"... STEPHEN JIGGETTS, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL CIPULLO and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendants. Civil Action No. 15-1951 (RBW) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ... 2015). Whether an arrest is unlawful depends on whether probable cause existed. See Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F. Supp. 2d 39, 53 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walton, J.) ("The detention of a ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama – 2018
Williams v. City of Birmingham
"... ... that Connick requires "a pattern of highly similar prior constitutional violations"); Olaniyi v. District of Columbia , 876 F.Supp.2d 39, 50 (D.D.C. 2012) (applying Connick 's rationale to ... Pa. Oct. 5, 2016) ; Hogan v. Robinson , 2006 WL 1049979, at *5–6, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33531, at *16–17 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ; cf. Santos v. City of Culver City , 228 F. App'x ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex