Vasquez v. Cnty. of Will, Ill.

1

JOSE T. VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WILL, ILLINOIS, et al., Defendants.

No. 17-cv-02194 (APM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Amit P. Mehta, United States District Court Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jose T. Vasquez shares a name and date of birth with unfortunately for Plaintiff, another person against whom there is an active warrant for a decades-old homicide. Plaintiff has been mistakenly arrested and detained numerous times as a result, including twice in the District of Columbia. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for these wrongful arrests.

At the center of the present action is the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's (“MPD”) use of teletype messages to confirm that warrants issued by other jurisdictions match the person arrested in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff claims that, because MPD mishandled a teletype message confirming that he was not the person wanted for the homicide, he was improperly detained for days until he was released by a magistrate judge. He also contends that he was arrested and detained a second time due to MPD's failure to chronicle the first improper arrest. Plaintiff brings a seven-count Complaint, alleging multiple section 1983 claims based on violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as common law claims grounded in intentional tort and negligence.

Defendants in this case are the District of Columbia and MPD Officer Ruben Agosto. They have moved for summary judgment on all claims.

For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Jose T. Vasquez is a resident of the State of Maryland. Pl.'s Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Under Seal, ECF No. 73, Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 73-2 [hereinafter Third Am. Compl.], ¶ 1. He has been arrested multiple times on a warrant issued for a person accused of homicide who shares the same name and date of birth. The warrant was issued by law enforcement authorities in Will County, Illinois. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 85 [hereinafter Defs.' Mot.], Defs.' Stmt. of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 85-2 [hereinafter Defs.' SOF], ¶ 3. Illinois authorities made a grave error leading to Plaintiffs improper arrests-it entered the warrant with Plaintiffs Social Security Number rather than the murder suspect's Social Security Number. Defs.' SOF ¶ 5; Defs.' Mot., Dep. of Officer Terence Sutton, Ex. 3, ECF No. 85-6, at 17; see also Third Am. Compl. ¶ 3. As a result, Plaintiff matched the warrant database at first glance, leaving him susceptible to a false arrest. Such an arrest occurred at least four times (i.e., 2005, “one or more other occasions prior to 2009, ” 2016, and 2017) over a period of twelve years. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 36, 61.

In 2013, the Will County Sherriff s Office, after repeated false notifications, updated their warrant entry to prevent future arrests of Plaintiff. The updated entry informed law enforcement agencies: “DO NOT DETAIN A VASQUEZ, JOSE [redacted birthdate] SS [redacted] THIS IS NOT SUSPECT.” Pl.'s Consent Mot. for Leave to File Under Seal, ECF No. 87 [hereinafter Pl.'s Mot. for Leave], Pl.s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 87-2 [hereinafter Pl.'s Opp'n], ¶ 3; see also Third Am. Compl. ¶ 35 (noting the timing of the change). Regrettably, this update did not inoculate Plaintiff from future mistaken arrests.

1. First Arrest

This action concerns two such arrests occurring in 2016 and 2017 in the District of Columbia. The first took place on October 23, 2016. On that date, Officer Terence Sutton of the MPD arrested Plaintiff after a traffic stop on the 5400 block of Georgia Avenue N.W. Defs.' SOF ¶ 1; Pl.'s Mot. for Leave, Pl.'s Stmt. of Genuine Issues of Disputed Material Fact & Add'l Issues of Material Fact, ECF No. 87-3 [hereinafter Pl.'s SOF], ¶ 1. Officer Sutton ran a query in the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) database, which returned two contradictory entries. Pl.'s SOF ¶ 4; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. B., ECN No. 87-8 at 1; see also Third Am. Compl ¶ 26. One entry for a failure to appear on a homicide charge matched Plaintiffs name, date of birth, and Social Security Number. Pl.'s SOF ¶ 3. The other for the underlying homicide charge contained the notation “DO NOT DETAIN A VASQUEZ, JOSE [redacted birthdate] SS [redacted]. THIS IS NOT SUSPECT.” Id. Officer Sutton did not notice this second entry and arrested Plaintiff on the warrant. Pl.'s SOF ¶ 3; Pl.'s Opp'n, Dep. of Officer Terence Sutton, ECF No. 87-7, at 19-20.

The next day, a different MPD officer, Officer Ernest Cole, sent a teletype message notifying the Will County Sheriffs Office of Plaintiff s apprehension and seeking confirmation that it would extradite him. Defs.' SOF ¶ 9; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 9. He did not, however, send Plaintiffs Social Security Number with this “hit and locate” inquiry. Pl.'s SOF ¶ 9. Meanwhile, Officer Cole also initiated a fugitive criminal action against Plaintiff, despite his protests that he was a victim of mistaken identity and had never stepped foot in Illinois. Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 10-11; Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 10-11, 39. After his arraignment, a D.C. Superior Court judge ordered Plaintiff detained without bond pending an extradition hearing. Defs.' SOF ¶ 11; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 11.

On October 28, 2016, MPD Officer Ruben Agosto, a Defendant in the present action, emailed the Will County Sheriff's Office a photograph of Plaintiff and his fingerprints. Defs.' SOF ¶ 12; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 12. Later that day, Will County alerted the MPD Fugitive Unit by teletype that any holds on Plaintiff should be released. Defs.' SOF ¶ 16; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 16. Plaintiff, however, would not be released for another five days. Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 22-23; Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 22-23. On November 2, 2016, at a bond review hearing, Plaintiff's defense counsel raised the issue of mistaken identity, and the court ordered the U.S. Attorney's Office to look into the matter. Defs.' SOF ¶ 20; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 20. The next day, November 3, 2021, Officer Agosto sent the now days-old, exonerating teletype message received from Will County to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which then moved to dismiss the fugitive case against Plaintiff, leading to his release that same day. Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 22-23; Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 22-23.

2. Second Arrest

On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff was arrested in the District of Columbia once again following a traffic stop, this time by a U.S. Secret Service Officer. Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 24, 27; Pl.'s SOF ¶¶ 24, 27. Plaintiff was taken into custody after discovery of the open warrant from Will County. Defs.' SOF ¶ 26; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 26. Plaintiff eventually was taken to MPD for processing; he claimed his innocence throughout, both to the arresting officer and to MPD. Pl.'s SOF ¶ 67; Defs.' Reply in Further Supp. of Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 93 [hereinafter Defs.' Reply], Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Stmt. of Genuine Issues of Disputed Material Fact & Add'l Issues of Material Fact, ECF No. 93-1 [hereinafter Defs.' Reply SOF], ¶ 67. MPD again initiated a fugitive case against Plaintiff. Defs.' SOF ¶ 30; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 30. Only after his arraignment on March 4, 2017, when his defense attorney alerted the presiding judge that he had been arrested based on this mistaken identity just months earlier, was Plaintiff released. Defs.' SOF ¶ 31; Pl.'s SOF ¶ 31.

B. Procedural Background

This matter has taken many twists and turns since its filing. Plaintiff brought this action on October 23, 2017. Compl., ECF No. 1. The Complaint, as originally filed, contained twelve counts against various defendants, including individual MPD officers, the arresting Secret Service officer, the District of Columbia, a John Doe defendant from Illinois, and two Illinois state governments: the County of Will and the City of Joliet. Id. ¶¶ 2-7. On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that dropped claims against the individual MPD officers and the arresting Secret Service officer. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 28. Then, on April 30, 2018, Plaintiff moved to split his claims into two actions and transfer the claims against the Illinois-based defendants to the Northern District of Illinois. Pl.'s Unopposed Mot. to Sever Claims & Transfer Claims to N.D. Ill., ECF No. 29. The court granted that motion, Order, ECF No. 30, leaving only Plaintiff's claims against the District of Columbia in the then-operative complaint.

Thereafter, the District moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim on May 7, 2018. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 32. The court granted this Motion on November 14, 2018, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 39. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 28, 2018, against the District of Columbia and a John Doe MPD officer. Pl.'s Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Under Seal, ECF No. 41, Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 41-2. Defendant District of Columbia again moved to dismiss. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 47. The court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 52. The court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on his common law claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the District of Columbia and a section 1983 claim against the John Doe defendant. See Id. at 7, 10, 11. The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the District of Columbia for negligence and under section 1983 for failure to state a claim. See Id. at 13, 15. After the District of Columbia filed an Answer, the matter proceeded to discovery. Discovery closed on September 1, 2020. Order, ECF No. 64.

Plaintiff then filed a Third Amended Complaint on September 25, 2020 which is now the...