Tobal v. V.I. Police Dep't

DWAYNE TOBAL, Plaintiff, v. VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NOVELLE E. FRANCIS, JR., OAKLAND BENTA, NIZAR A. DEWOOD, CORNELIUS D. EVANS, MELISSA P. MORONEY, KIRK FIEULLETEAU, and JOSE SILVA, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2010-0062

United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix

January 13, 2022

Mark W. Eckard, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Plaintiff

Denise N. George, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Erika Marie Scott Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILMA A. LEWIS DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” and Memorandum in Support thereof (Dkt. Nos. 47, 48). Plaintiff Dwayne Tobal (“Plaintiff” or “Tobal”) challenges his July 16, 2008 arrest and detention in connection with a robbery of a local bank. Following his arrest, a Superior Court Judge ordered Plaintiff detained without bail. He spent the next seven months in jail until the Virgin Islands Attorney General's Office moved to dismiss the case without prejudice because the Office was not prepared for the approaching trial. The motion was granted and Plaintiff was released from custody in February 2009.

On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed this case against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In summary, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants (1) unlawfully arrested him without first properly investigating his alibi (2) provided false information to the Superior Court which issued the arrest warrant; (3) conspired to intimidate witnesses from testifying at his detention hearing; (4) failed to conduct a proper post-arrest investigation; and (5) failed to timely turn over material and exculpatory evidence thereby causing him to remain in jail for seven months. Defendants seek Judgment on Plaintiff's Complaint asserting that they were not properly served; Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims against them; and they are immune from suit.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, all of Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, except Plaintiff's conspiracy claims, will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and/or on grounds of qualified or absolute immunity. Plaintiff's Equal Protection and conspiracy to intimidate witness claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)-which are insufficient to state a claim as currently pleaded-will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have sixty days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion-up to and including March 14, 2022-within which to file and properly serve an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the specific claims that have been dismissed without prejudice.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Arrest and Detention

Plaintiff alleges that on July 16, 2008, between approximately 11:47 a.m. and 11:54 a.m., the Bank of St. Croix, Peter's Rest branch, was robbed at gunpoint. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 8).^[1] The robber wore all black clothing, including a black mask and a “S.W.A.T.” vest. Id. at ¶ 9. During the robbery, the robber fired a gunshot into the ceiling of the bank. Id. at ¶ 10. Surveillance footage from the bank's security camera showed a vehicle circling the bank's parking lot during the robbery. Id. at ¶ 13. After seizing money from the bank and property from its customers, the robber took car keys from one of the customers and fled in the customer's car. Id. at ¶ 14.

Minutes after the robbery, police arrived at the bank and began interviewing witnesses. Id. at ¶ 15. At 12:08 p.m., the bank's Customer Service Representative (“CSR”) was interviewed by one officer, but she did not report that she recognized the robber. Id. At 12:15 p.m., Detective Kirk Fieulleteau (“Defendant Fieulleteau”), with the Virgin Islands Police Department (“VIPD”), arrived. Id. at ¶ 16. He also interviewed the CSR and his report reflected that the CSR stated that the suspect fit the description of a male customer, Dwayne Tobal. She also stated that the robber's voice sounded like that of Tobal. Id.

Defendant Fieulleteau also interviewed a bank teller, who stated that the robber fit the description of Tobal. Id. at ¶ 17. She stated that the robber's voice sounded more familiar as the robbery progressed, and was similar to that of a male that came to the bank every week to cash his paycheck from Catalina Pool Services (“Catalina Pool”). Id. The statement obtained by detectives reflects that, after the robbery, the CSR had told the teller that the robber looked like one of two brothers. In response, the teller suggested the names Shane and Dwayne Tobal, but the CSR did not tell her which one of the brothers the robber resembled. Id. The written statement also notes that the teller told police that the two brothers looked like twins. Id.

Following the interviews with the teller and the CSR, Defendant Fieulleteau contacted Plaintiff Tobal on his cell phone. Plaintiff agreed to meet with Fieulleteau at Tobal's residence. Id. at ¶ 20. After this meeting, Tobal voluntarily traveled to the Rainbow Police Complex to be questioned. Id. Plaintiff informed police that he had reported to work that morning at Catalina Pool but was told by the manager that there was no work for him that day. Because his brother had driven him to work, he called his wife to pick him up at the Catalina Pool office. Id. at ¶¶ 2122. Plaintiff told police that he was at the Catalina Pool office with his supervisor until his wife arrived. Tobal also reported that he believed that it was close to 1:00 p.m. when his wife picked him up. Id. at ¶ 22. Tobal told the police that he was not involved in the bank robbery, and he consented to having his hands and arms swabbed for gun residue or DNA. Id. at ¶ 23. Following Tobal's statement, the police did not attempt to contact Tobal's supervisor to confirm whether he was at work at the time of the robbery. Id. at ¶ 24.

On the evening of the robbery, the police sought and obtained an arrest warrant for Plaintiff and a search warrant for his residence. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at ¶ 25; 48-1; 48-2). The affidavit provided to the Superior Court Judge reported the statements of the bank employees and also reported that Detective Jose Silva had visited Catalina Pool and spoke to an employee who reported that Tobal had left the business at about 11:00 a.m. and was dressed in a black t-shirt, black pants, black boots, and a black hair stocking. (Dkt. No. 48-3 at 3). The VIPD executed the search warrant on Plaintiff's residence that same evening and arrested Plaintiff. Id. The search of Plaintiff's home did not lead to the seizure of any evidence that linked Plaintiff to the bank robbery. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 26). Based on the statements of the two bank employees and Plaintiff's co-worker, prosecutors filed a complaint charging Plaintiff with twenty-four counts in connection with the bank robbery. Id. at ¶ 29.

Plaintiff alleges that once he was arrested, no further investigation was performed. Id. at ¶ 30. He asserts that the police never: performed gunshot residue tests on Plaintiff; conducted a photo line-up or a voice array for the witnesses to identify him; analyzed the Bank's surveillance video to determine the height and weight of the robber; enhanced the video to obtain a clearer image of the robber; investigated the vehicle circling the bank during the robbery; released the surveillance video to the media to seek public assistance in identifying the robber; conducted ballistics tests on the bullet that was fired in the bank to compare it to bullets recovered from other crimes; or investigated whether any police vests were missing at the time of the robbery. Id. at ¶¶ 27-28, 31-36.

The arrest warrant issued by the Superior Court set Plaintiff's bail at $500, 000. (Dkt. No. 48-1). The bail amount remained unchanged following his advice of rights hearing conducted the next day. (Dkt. Nos. 1 at ¶¶ 38-39; 48-4). Plaintiff and his family lacked the assets to post bail. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 39). In addition, Plaintiff's name and photograph were distributed throughout the media and the story of the robbery and his arrest made front page news in the Virgin Islands. Id. at ¶ 40.

On the day after his arrest, Plaintiff's supervisor at Catalina Pool provided the VIPD with a statement explaining that Plaintiff was with him at the office at the time of the bank robbery until about 12:30 to 12:45 p.m. Id. at ¶ 41. On the next day, the general manager of Catalina Pool made a statement to the VIPD that he saw Plaintiff at Catalina Pool on the day of the robbery and saw Tobal leaving a little after 12:30 p.m. Id. at ¶ 42. On that same day, one of Plaintiff's co- workers gave the VIPD a statement that he had arrived at Catalina Pool around 1:00 p.m. on the day of the robbery and was informed that he had just missed Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 43. Five days after the robbery, Plaintiff's wife provided the VIPD with a statement asserting that on the day of the robbery, Plaintiff had called her at about 11:15 a.m. requesting a ride home. She also stated that she picked him up at Catalina Pool between 12:20 and 12:25 p.m. Id. at ¶ 44.

Despite these statements providing an alibi, Plaintiff remained incarcerated. Id. at ¶ 45. On July 21, 2008 some witnesses called into a local radio show to report that Plaintiff did not commit the robbery. Id. at ¶ 46. In response to these public statements, Acting Police Chief Oakland Benta (“Defendant Benta”) went on the radio show and stated that the police “firmly believe they have the right suspect in custody.” Id. at ¶ 47. Defendant Benta also told the...