Pollard v. Dist. of Columbia, 12-cv-1010 (KBJ)

191 F.Supp.3d 58

Anitra POLLARD, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

No. 12-cv-1010 (KBJ)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed June 9, 2016

Roy Carleton Howell, Law Office of Roy C. Howell, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Steven J. Anderson, Owen Williams, Joseph Alfonso Gonzalez, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge

In October of 2011, officers from the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") arrested Kevin Witherspoon—a then-29-year-old D.C. resident with an intellectual disability and a phonological disorder—for his participation in what is known as a "buy/bust" drug operation. The undisputed facts establish that Witherspoon got into an unmarked police car with an undercover police officer, and then, at the officer's prompting, directed the officer to two different locations, where he purchased marijuana and cocaine with money the officer provided and brought the drugs back to the officer. Although Witherspoon was promptly arrested, he was not ultimately prosecuted; nevertheless, his sisters, Anitra Pollard and Lakeisha Witherspoon ("Plaintiffs"), have filed the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MPD and various individual officers (collectively, "Defendants") to recover for what they contend was an egregious violation of Witherspoon's rights. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Witherspoon's arrest breached federal and state law in myriad ways, the most notable of which is the assertion that the officers with whom Witherspoon interacted violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments because they lacked probable cause to arrest him.

Before this Court at present is Defendants' combined partial motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and partial motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants' motion addresses only the complaint's constitutional claims, and given the limited scope of the parties' discovery thus far, Defendants seek summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 only with respect to the constitutional claims that hinge on the legitimacy of the arrest: Count I (state endangerment in violation of the Fifth Amendment), Count II (false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment), and Count IV (Fifth Amendment abuse of process). (See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss & Summ. J. ("Defs.' Mem."), ECF No. 101 at 8–9.)¹ In regard to these counts, Defendants argue that, even taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have not established that Witherspoon's arrest violated any constitutional right, and that, in any event, no such right was clearly established. Defendants also request that Plaintiffs' other constitutional claims—Count III (unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment), Count V (state endangerment at the D.C. jail in violation of the Fifth Amendment), Count VI (failure to protect in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments), Count VII (failure to train MPD officers in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments), and Count IX (failure to protect Plaintiff Lakeisha Witherspoon in violation of the Fifth Amendment)—be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See id. )

As explained fully below, after a motion hearing and a thorough review of the record and the parties' respective arguments, this Court agrees with Defendants that none of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims passes muster under Rule 56 and Rule 12, and therefore, the Court concludes that Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissal must be GRANTED . Moreover, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, and thus, the state law claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE , leaving Plaintiffs free to pursue them, should they choose to do so, in state court.

A separate order consistent with the memorandum opinion will follow.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts Regarding Witherspoon's Arrest

As mentioned above, this case arises out of a specific encounter between Kevin Witherspoon and certain officers of the MPD on October 21, 2011. The basic facts regarding the nature and circumstances of the interaction between the officers and Witherspoon are hotly disputed; the thrust of each side's recitation is as follows.

1. Plaintiffs' Version

According to the Second Amended Complaint, Witherspoon was born with a severe intellectual disability and has the intellectual capabilities of a child. (See SAC ¶¶ 16–22.) Witherspoon's mother died in 2004, and he now lives with his sister Lakeisha Witherspoon and receives support from older sister Anitra Pollard, who is also his guardian and conservator. (See id. ¶¶ 23–25.)

On October 21, 2011, Lakeisha allowed Witherspoon to leave their residence by himself and go to the corner store with a small amount of money. The complaint alleges that, on his way there, Witherspoon was approached by Defendant Officers Durham and Hall, who "convinced him" to enter their undercover police vehicle. (See id. ¶¶ 31–33.) Plaintiffs assert that the officers then drove to an area of known drug activity, where they (along with the defendant officers Walker, Jackson, and Anderson) "supervised, directed, and engaged" Witherspoon to negotiate the purchase of marijuana and cocaine. (See id. ¶ 38.) The complaint states that the officers immediately arrested Witherspoon and, thereafter, filed a report that failed to mention Witherspoon's intellectual disability. (See id. ¶ 40.) Plaintiffs also contend that Witherspoon was placed in the general population at the D.C. jail, where he "suffered violent threats" (see id. ¶ 44) and "sustained injury" (see id. ¶ 45).

Plaintiffs assert that, following Witherspoon's arrest, a grand jury refused to indict him for these drug transactions, and the United States Attorney declined to prosecute him. (See ECF No. 30, Exs. 2 & 3.) However, Plaintiffs allege that Witherspoon was branded a police informant in his community, which placed him and his family in danger. (See SAC ¶¶ 52.) Their property was allegedly vandalized, and Plaintiffs assert that they were forced to move due to death threats. (See id. ¶¶ 53–54.)

2. Defendant's Version

As noted, Defendants contest various salient aspects of Plaintiffs' story. According to Defendants, Officer Durham was driving around the Seventh District in an unmarked vehicle when Witherspoon approached his car and asked for a ride. (See Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ("Defs.' SMF"), ECF No. 101 at 29–31, ¶¶ 2, 5; Dep. of Hampton D. Durham ("Durham Dep."), ECF Nos. 101–2 & 108–8, at 7:3–18, 11:15–12:3.) Officer Durham purportedly observed a known gang-affiliation tattoo on Witherspoon's face (see Defs.' SMF ¶ 4); he then asked Witherspoon about obtaining marijuana (see id. ¶ 5). Witherspoon allegedly said that he could obtain marijuana for Officer Durham. (See id. ¶¶ 5.)

Purportedly following Witherspoon's lead, the officers went back to the apartment building that Witherspoon had originally emerged from. (See id. ¶ 6.) Witherspoon entered the building and purchased marijuana in an apartment that he had been to "plenty of times" before, using money that Officer Durham had given him. (See id. ¶¶ 5–6.) Defendants assert that Witherspoon then directed Officer Durham to a new location and purchased cocaine for Officer Durham using money that Officer Durham had provided. (See id. ¶ 7.) Notably, Officer Durham claimed that he did not perceive anything unusual about Witherspoon at any point during these interactions (see id. at 31 ¶ 8), and after the second drug transaction, the buy/bust team arrested Witherspoon for distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (see id. ¶ 9; Ex. 4 to Defs.' SMF at 2).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on June 20, 2012 (see ECF No. 1), and an amended complaint on September 4, 2012 (see ECF No. 30). The district judge to whom the case was originally assigned ordered discovery on the sole issue of whether Witherspoon's arrest was supported by probable cause. (See ECF No. 32.) The case was then reassigned to the undersigned on April 4, 2013. After a period of limited discovery, the parties each moved for summary judgment on the probable cause question. This Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on February 14, 2014, because genuine issues of material fact remained with respect to whether or not Officer Durham had probable cause to arrest Witherspoon. (See Order, ECF No. 48.)²

On January 6, 2015, this Court held an initial scheduling conference and the parties proceeded with broader discovery. During the discovery period, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the Court granted (see ECF Nos. 69, 87), and Plaintiffs filed the new complaint (the one at issue at present) on May 14, 2015 (see ECF No. 88). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter referred to as "SAC") makes eight claims that allegedly arise under the U.S. Constitution: state endangerment during the undercover drug operation in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Count I); false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count II); unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Count III); abuse of process in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Count IV); state endangerment at the D.C. jail in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Count V); failure to protect in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Count VI); failure to train MPD officers in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments (Count VII); and failure to protect Plaintiff Lakeisha Witherspoon in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Count IX). (See SAC ¶¶ 55–143, 150–159.) In addition, the complaint claims that certain Defendants are liable for negligent training and supervision under D.C. common law (Counts VIII and...