Posyton v. Maryland

RONALD H. POSYTON, III, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: PWG-16-3887

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division

August 28, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Ronald Posyton, III enrolled at the University of Maryland, College Park for about a month in 2015, where he lived in a dormitory. During that time, University of Maryland Police Department ("UMPD") officers came to his dorm room twice, once entering briefly and the second time asking him to accompany them to the station, where they questioned him for three and a half hours. Upset by these interactions, Posyton withdrew from the university and filed suit against the police officers ("Individual Defendants") in their individual and official capacities, as well as the State of Maryland.

Pending is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice and/or for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 33. Because, as Posyton concedes, he cannot state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State, those claims will be dismissed. And, because the Individual Defendants are immune to suit in their individual capacities with regard to Posyton's state constitutional tort claims, I will dismiss those claims as well. Defendants fail to establish Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity, however, and Posyton has stated claims against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities under § 1983 and Maryland under state law. Therefore, this case will proceed to discovery with regard to those claims, and I will appoint pro bono counsel for Posyton, for the limited purpose of advising him throughout the discovery period, without entering an appearance or representing him in this case.

Background

Posyton transferred to the University of Maryland, College Park ("UMCP") at the beginning of fall semester 2015, and he lived in a dormitory. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-22, ECF No. 26; Pl.'s Aff. to Clarify ¶ 1, ECF No. 32.¹ Late on September 19, 2015, he "snorted his prescription medications (one 10mg Adderall pill) in the vantage-point of his roommate," who "asked Mr. Posyton 'to either stop snorting the substance or leave the room because it [was] not allowed in the residence halls.'" Pl.'s Aff. to Clarify ¶ 2. Posyton left the room, and his roommate reported his actions to the "RA" (Residential Advisor); another RA called the University of Maryland Police Department ("UMPD"). Id. ¶¶ 2-3. UMPD officers went to Posyton's dorm room but, because he was not there, they asked the RA "to contact UMPD when Mr. Posyton was located." Id. ¶ 4. At about 12:30 p.m. on September 20, 2015, the RA learned that Posyton was in his dorm room, asleep, and she called UMPD. Id. ¶¶ 6-7.

Five UMPD officers responded to her call. Id. ¶ 7; Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-22.² They knocked on Posyton's room door, waking him. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 23. He opened the door and "backed away slowly, and sat down in a chair." Id. ¶ 25. After speaking briefly with Posyton while standing in the hallway, Officer Brian Naecker asked if he and the other officers(John Doe 1, John Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4) could enter; "[i]n response to NAECKER's request, MR. POSYTON unequivocally did absolutely nothing." Id. Naecker took two steps into the room, Posyton "yelled, 'No!'" and Nacker left the room, continuing his conversation from the hallway. Id. ¶¶ 26-29.

Posyton claims that Doe 4 "reminded [him] to take his prescription medications," he went to his bathroom to do so, and invited Naecker to accompany him. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 33; Pl.'s Aff. to Clarify ¶ 18. Naecker "walk[ed] over to Mr. Posyton's bed and start[ed] looking around,"³ instead of accompanying him to the bathroom. Pl.'s Aff. to Clarify ¶ 19. When Posyton returned, he saw Doe 1 standing five feet inside his room; Does 3 and 4 failed to stop Doe 1 from entering. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 33. Ultimately, the officers "decided to vacate the premises"; Posyton asserts that he "never felt free to terminate the encounter." Id. ¶ 32.

On September 23, 2015, Officers William Mable, Michael Thomas and John Doe 2 went to Posyton's dorm room. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38, 40. The officers had their weapons, but not their body cameras with them. Id. ¶¶ 40, 43. When Posyton opened the door, Mable said, "We'd like you to come down to the station for questioning." Id. ¶ 44. Posyton agreed to go and invited the officers in, although as he sees it, he "believed that MABLE was getting prepared to imminently pull him from his home," and "MR. POSYTON would have been chastised by UMCP's Code of Conduct if he had refused." Id. ¶¶ 48-49. Additionally, he "believed that he had no choice other than to travel to 'the station,'" and because the officers were not in uniform,"during brief moments, he believed that he was being kidnapped." Id. ¶ 54. Posyton asked to be questioned in his dorm room, but Mable simply repeated that they wanted him to go to the police station. Id. ¶¶ 47, 53. Thomas showed Posyton his badge on the way to the officers' unmarked car. Id. ¶ 55. Thomas and Doe 2 ordered Posyton to sit in the front seat, which Posyton perceived as an "attempt[] to cover-up [his] seizure." Id.

At the police station, the officers brought Posyton to a room, which they "covertly video record[ed]," and where they took a photograph of him. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 56-57. Posyton states that he "was never told that he was free to leave," and he informed the officers that he was "really scared" and concerned that "he would be expelled from UMCP's program" for being at the station. Id. ¶¶ 61-63. He claims that "MABLE and THOMAS implied that they would not enlighten UMCP of MR. POSYTON's situation if he cooperated, which effectively induced MR. POSYTON into expressing every cognizable act of possible wrongdoing." Id. ¶ 65. Within less than two minutes, "MR. POSYTON . . . confess[ed] to every offense that he ever committed," including that "he made brief contact with an unknown person on their 'shin.'" Id. ¶¶ 66-67. He provided a statement. Id. ¶¶ 69-72.

Posyton then admitted "to having said something sexual to GAREY," after having "previously denied [it] approximately 14 times"; he claims that Thomas "coerce[d] him" and said he would not "get in trouble." Id. ¶ 72. When Posyton asked if he could open the door, "THOMAS chuckled and left THE ROOM." Id. ¶ 70. He was "released" after three and a half hours. Id. ¶ 75. He claims that this was a "false confession" and that he would not have been "released . . . if he had not provided a confession." Id. According to Posyton, "MABLE's and THOMAS's primary objective was to capture MR. POSYTON's photograph" while he was atthe station. Id. ¶ 76. Mable included Posyton's photograph in a photo line-up shown to Garey, who identified Posyton as the one involved in the September 18, 2015 incident. Id. ¶¶ 77-78.

Two days later, on September 25, 2015, Posyton was charged with underage possession of alcohol; the charge was nolle prosequi. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 80. He claims that the officer who charged him, James Runuldue,⁴ "drove off with [his] UMCP identification card." Id. The same day, Posyton withdrew from UMCP because he "was afraid that UMPD officers would return to his home." Id. ¶ 79.

On September 26, 2015, Posyton was charged with second degree assault; he claims that the charge was based on Mable's warrant application, which provided that "Posyton stated" that he asked to kiss Garey, when Posyton actually wrote that he "maybe, probably" asked to kiss her. Id. ¶¶ 73-74, 81, 84. Posyton contacted UMPD about the charges a few days later, but Mable refused to speak with him, and Deanna Renner, who did speak with him, refused to provide the police report and threatened to charge him with assault and harassment if he contacted UMPD again. Id. ¶¶ 86-87. He asserts that he was not properly served with process in his criminal case. Id. ¶¶ 88-89. His criminal trial was scheduled for December 12, 2015 but had to be rescheduled when Garey and Mable did not appear, "thereby, depriving MR. POSYTON of the right to a speedy trial." Id. ¶ 91. The case was placed on the stet docket. Id. ¶ 92. Thereafter, "[o]n February 22, 2016, MR. POSYTON was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital for the mentally insane due to the foregoing events." Id. ¶ 93.

Posyton filed suit on October 25, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, ECF No. 2, and Defendants removed to this Court on December 5, 2016, ECF No. 1. He soughtleave to file a "second" amended complaint, ECF No. 17, but, because no prior amendment appeared on the docket, I informed him that he could amend as a matter of course, Jan. 5, 2017 Ltr. Order, ECF No. 23. Posyton filed a document titled "Second Amended Complaint," which actually was his first amended complaint. ECF No. 24. Defendants filed a letter stating their intent to file a motion to dismiss and outlining the perceived deficiencies in the amended complaint. ECF No. 25. In response, Posyton filed a Second Amended Complaint (erroneously titled "Third Amended Complaint" but referred to in this Memorandum Opinion and Order as Second Amended Complaint). ECF No. 26; see Jan. 5, 2017 Ltr. Order (permitting Posyton to amend to address deficiencies that Defendants identified, after which Defendants could move to dismiss if they still believed the pleading failed to state a claim). He further amended his pleadings through Consent Motions to Dismiss Counts IV, VIII, IX, X and XI of the Second Amended Complaint and all claims against James Runuldue and Deanna Renner in their official and individual capacities, ECF Nos. 27, 29, which I approved, ECF Nos. 30, 31. Thus, the Second Amended Complaint, as amended by the Consent Motions to Dismiss, is the operative complaint.

Counts I, II, and III are claims under the Fourth Amendment (pursuant to § 1983) and Md. Const., Art. 26 against Naecker and Doe 1, Count I for invasion of privacy, Count II for unlawful entry, and Count III for unreasonable search....