Paulone v. City of Frederick

JOETTE PAULONE, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF FREDERICK, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: ELH-09-2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Dated: May 3, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In July 2009, Joette Paulone, plaintiff, sued the Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County (the "County"), and the State of Maryland (the "State"), defendants, ¹ alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, as well as a common law claim for negligent training and supervision. The claims pertain to events that followed plaintiff's arrest on July 31, 2008, by City of Frederick (the "City") police on charges that plaintiff, who is deaf, was driving while impaired by alcohol ("DWI"). Plaintiff contends that defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her disability during her post-arrest detention, her initial appearance before a State district court commissioner, ² and her attendance at alcohol educationclasses and a victim impact panel, which were requirements of the probation sentence she received for the DWI charge. Paulone seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Id.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and have extensively briefed the issues. No hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the County's motion, and will grant in part and deny in part the summary judgment motions filed by plaintiff and the State.

Factual Overview³

At approximately 11:48 p.m. on July 31, 2008, City Officer Scott McGregor stopped plaintiff on suspicion of DWI. Affidavit of Scott McGregor at 1 ("McGregor Aff.") (ECF 60-1); see also Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment at 1 ("Pl. MSJ") (ECF 52-1); County's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment at 2-3 ("County MSJ") (ECF 51-1). After administering field sobriety tests to Paulone, McGregor arrested her and transported her to Frederick Police Headquarters. See McGregor Aff. at 2; Pl. MSJ at 2; County MSJ at 2-3. Then, at approximately 2:30 a.m., McGregor transported Paulone to the Frederick County Adult Detention Center (the "Detention Center" or "FCADC"), operated by the Frederick County Sheriff's Office. See McGregor Aff. at 2; Pl. MSJ at 2; County MSJ at 3.

Plaintiff was in custody at the Detention Center from approximately 2:30 a.m. until approximately 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. on August 1, 2008. The parties agree that an interpreter was not provided to plaintiff during her detention, and that any communication between plaintiff and Detention Center personnel took place by means of written notes.⁴ See County MSJ at 3-5; Pl. MSJ at 2-4. The parties also agree that Detention Center personnel gave plaintiff the opportunity to make several phone calls by means of a teletypewriter ("TTY" or "T.T.Y.").⁵ See County MSJ at 3-5; Pl. MSJ at 2-4.

At approximately 7:00 a.m., plaintiff appeared before Maryanne Riggin, a district court commissioner. Under Maryland law, a district court commissioner is a judicial officer who is appointed by the administrative judge of the judicial district, and need not be a lawyer. See Md. Code (2006 Repl. Vol., 2010 Supp.), § 2-607(a)(1), (b)(1) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article ("C.J.") (appointment and requirements of district court commissioners); Md. Rule 4-102(f) (2010) (district court commissioners are judicial officers). A district court commissioner's responsibilities include conducting "initial appearances" for persons who are arrested without a warrant, including arrests made at times when the courts are not open. As discussed in more detail, infra, a district court commissioner must determine at the initial appearance whether there was probable cause for the defendant's arrest, advise the defendant of various constitutional rights and procedural requirements, and determine whether the defendantwill be released pretrial (and, if so, the amount of any bond). See generally C.J. § 2-607(c); Md. Rules 4-213 & 4-216.

In this case, the district court commissioners' office was located next to the Central Booking Unit at the Detention Center. County MSJ at 3. Riggin recounts in her affidavit that unsuccessful attempts were made to procure an American Sign Language ("ASL") interpreter for Paulone's initial appearance. See Affidavit of Maryanne Riggin ("Riggin Aff.")¶¶3-4, Ex.2 to Memorandum in Support of State of Maryland's Motion for Summary Judgment ("State MSJ") (ECF 53-3). In any event, the parties agree that plaintiff's initial appearance before Commissioner Riggin was not facilitated by use of an ASL interpreter, and that communication between Commissioner Riggin and plaintiff occurred by means of handwritten notes. Commissioner Riggin released plaintiff on her own recognizance at approximately 7:23 a.m., and plaintiff left the Detention Center by taxicab. See Pl. MSJ at 3; County MSJ at 5-6.

On October 7, 2008, plaintiff appeared with counsel in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County. Pl. MSJ at 3; State of Maryland's Mem. in Support of Its Opp. to Pl. MSJ ("State Opp.") at 7. The hearing was facilitated by use of an ASL interpreter. State Opp. at 7. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to DWI, and was sentenced to probation before judgment, pursuant to Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol., 2010 Supp.), § 6-220 of the Criminal Procedure Article.⁶ See Defendant Trial Summary at 1, Ex.3A to State MSJ (ECF 53-8). As conditions of her probation, Paulone was required to attend "Victim Impact Panel meetings" presented by Mothers AgainstDrunk Driving ("MADD"), and to "[s]ubmit to alcohol and drug evaluation, testing, and treatment as directed" by plaintiff's probation monitors at the Drinking Driving Monitor Program ("DDMP") of the State's Division of Parole and Probation. Probation Summary, Ex.3B to State MSJ (ECF 53-9).⁷

According to an affidavit of Mark Lucas, one of plaintiff's probation monitors through DDMP, plaintiff was required to undergo an alcohol treatment evaluation by a State-certified addictions counselor. Affidavit of Mark Lucas ("Lucas Aff.") at 3, Ex.3 to State MSJ (ECF 537). The monitors also instructed plaintiff to attend a MADD victim impact panel on February 4, 2009. Lucas Aff. at 4. The record reflects that plaintiff's DDMP monitors rejected her requests for State-provided ASL interpreters at the impact panel and at her evaluation, taking the position that it was plaintiff's responsibility and/or that of MADD and plaintiffs addictions counselor to provide interpreters. Lucas Aff. at 4. Plaintiff attended the MADD victim impact panel on February 4, 2009, without an interpreter. Pl. MSJ at 4.

Plaintiff was evaluated by Laura Dreany-Pyles, BSW, CAC-AD, ⁸ a certified addictions counselor who is also deaf, and who was employed by Deaf Addiction Services at Maryland ("DASAM"), a substance abuse program for deaf or hearing-impaired individuals, based at the University of Maryland at Baltimore. Pl. MSJ at 15. Dreany-Pyles concluded that plaintiff did not require addiction treatment. Id. Plaintiff's DDMP monitors then directed plaintiff to enroll, no later than March 17, 2009, in a State-certified six-week or twelve-hour alcohol educationclass, which was, under DDMP policy, required for alcohol offenders who do not need addiction treatment. Lucas Aff. at 5. DDMP provided plaintiff with a list of class providers, which included DASAM. Id. DDMP also advised Plaintiff that she was required to make arrangements for an interpreter. Pl. MSJ at 4.

Plaintiff sought unsuccessfully to locate a course in the Frederick area with an interpreter. She tried to contact several course providers, who either did not call her back, did not accept her insurance, or would not provide an interpreter. Pl. MSJ at 4. On March 31, 2009, DDMP filed a violation of probation ("VOP") charge against plaintiff for failure to enroll in the alcohol education class. See Statement of Charges, Ex. 5A to Pl. MSJ (ECF 52-9).

Prior to the VOP hearing, plaintiff learned that Ms. Dreany-Pyles (of DASAM) could conduct the alcohol education course in sign language, via videophone, and she enrolled in the class. Pl. MSJ at 5. At the VOP hearing on June 2, 2009, the court granted DDMP's request to dismiss the VOP charge and terminate supervision. See Tr. of VOP Hearing, Ex.3 to State Opp. (ECF 62-4).

Procedural Summary

As noted, plaintiff filed suit in July 2009. In September 2009, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment ("State's Motion") (ECF 22). In a reported Memorandum Opinion and Order entered February 17, 2010 (ECF 33 & 34), Judge Quarles granted the State's Motion, in part, and denied it, in part. Paulone v. City of Frederick, 718 F. Supp. 2d 626 (D. Md. 2010).⁹

As to plaintiff's ADA claim against the State (Count V), Judge Quarles reviewed plaintiff's contentions regarding the discrete events alleged in the Complaint. First, with respect to plaintiff's post-arrest detention and processing, Judge Quarles determined that plaintiff "stated a claim for disability discrimination... under the ADA," because she alleged that "necessary steps were not taken to ensure her communication": specifically, "(1) use of a working TTY machine to call from the Detention Center, (2) help in reading and understanding forms, and (3) access to a sign language interpreter." Id. at 635 (footnote omitted). Second, regarding court-ordered meetings with plaintiff's probation monitors through DDMP, Judge Quarles granted summary judgment in favor of the State, because the State had "shown that it provided an interpreter for Paulone during her meetings with DDMP monitors," with the exception of her initial intake meeting, for which plaintiff had not requested an interpreter. Id. at 636. Third, with respect to plaintiff's court-ordered attendance at a MADD victim impact panel and the alcohol education...