Costello v. District of Columbia , 826 F. Supp. 2d 221 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    ____________________________________
    )
    DANNY COSTELLO, and                  )
    GAI NGUYEN,                          )
    )
    Plaintiffs,       )
    )
    v.                            )   Civil Action No. 11-389 (RBW)
    )
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,               )
    )
    Defendant.        )
    ____________________________________)
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    The plaintiffs, Danny Costello and Gai Nguyen, bring this civil lawsuit against the
    District of Columbia (the “District”), seeking redress for an alleged unlawful search of their
    apartment in violation of 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2006), the Fourth Amendment of the United States
    Constitution, and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3109
     (2006). See Third Amended Complaint for Violation of
    Civil and Constitutional Rights (“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 4-23. Currently before the Court is the
    defendant’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. Upon careful consideration of the
    third amended complaint, the defendant’s motion, and all memoranda of law relating thereto, 1
    the Court must grant the defendant’s motion.
    I. BACKGROUND
    The third amended complaint contains the following material allegations. The plaintiffs
    are a married couple who reside at an apartment located in Washington, D.C. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2,
    1
    In addition to the documents already identified, the Court considered the following submissions in rendering its
    decision: (1) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Third
    Amended Complaint (“Def.’s Mem.”); (2) the Opposition to the Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (“Pls.’
    Opp’n”); and (3) the Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Def.’s
    Reply”).
    4. On April 1, 2010, a Judge of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia issued a warrant
    authorizing a search of the plaintiffs’ apartment. 
    Id. ¶¶ 4-5
    . The search warrant was issued upon
    a finding of probable cause to believe that the plaintiffs’ apartment contained “[m]oney derived
    from the sale of illegal drugs, paperwork showing dominion control of narcotics, US currency,
    scales, bank records, mailboxes, safes, similar storage cabinets, photographs, tally sheets, proof
    of occupancy, receipts, packing, boxes, [and] indicia of sale of weapons.” 
    Id. ¶ 5
    . On April 9,
    2010, ten officers from the District’s Metropolitan Police Department executed the search
    warrant. 
    Id. ¶ 4
    . The officers forcibly entered the plaintiffs’ apartment without first knocking
    and announcing their authority and purpose. 
    Id.
     When Mr. Costello asked the officers “what
    was going on,” one of the officers “put a gun to his head, told him to shut up, forcefully twisted
    his arm, handcuffed him, and restricted him to [a] couch” in the apartment. 
    Id.
     Ms. Nguyen then
    entered the room and asked “what’s wrong,” to which another officer “rushed over to her and
    told her to ‘shut up,’ pushed Ms. Nguyen against the wall, and forcibly pushed her outside of the
    apartment.” 
    Id.
     The officers restrained both plaintiffs while they conducted their search. 
    Id.
    Ultimately, the officers uncovered none of the items listed in their search warrant, nor any other
    contraband. 
    Id.
    The plaintiffs instituted this action on February 16, 2011, and thereafter filed their third
    amended complaint on April 14, 2011, asserting the following three claims against the District
    based upon the officers’ search of the plaintiffs’ apartment: Count I (for violations of the
    plaintiffs’ civil and constitutional rights under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    ), 
    id. ¶¶ 8-13
    ; Count II (for
    violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment), 
    id. ¶¶ 14-18
    ; and
    Count III (for violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3109
    ), 
    id.
     ¶¶ 19-
    23. On April 28, 2011, the District moved for dismissal of the third amended complaint pursuant
    2
    to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the plaintiffs have failed to state a
    claim of municipal liability against the District for the officers’ allegedly unconstitutional search.
    Def.’s Mem. at 3-5.
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    “A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether the
    complaint properly states a claim on which relief may be granted.” Davis v. Billington, 
    775 F. Supp. 2d 23
    , 32 (D.D.C. 2011). For a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only that it provide a “short and plain statement of the claim
    showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although “‘detailed
    factual allegations’” are not required, a plaintiff must provide “more than an unadorned, the-
    defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 
    129 S. Ct. 1937
    , 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 555–57 (2007)), in order
    to “give the defendant fair notice . . . of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,”
    Twombly, 
    550 U.S. at 555
     (citation omitted). Nor may a plaintiff offer mere “labels and
    conclusions . . . [or] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 
    Id. at 555
    .
    Rather, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
    relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 
    129 S. Ct. at 1949
     (quoting Twombly, 
    550 U.S. at 570
    ). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
    to draw [a] reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 
    Id.
    (quoting Twombly, 
    550 U.S. at 556
    ). “A complaint alleging facts which are merely consistent
    with a defendant's liability . . . stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
    entitlement to relief.” 
    Id.
     (citing Twombly, 
    550 U.S. at 557
    ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must be liberally construed in the
    3
    plaintiff's favor and the Court must accept as true all of the well-pleaded factual allegations made
    therein. Davis, 
    775 F. Supp. 2d at 32-33
    . Nevertheless, while the Court must accept well-
    pleaded factual allegations, any conclusory allegations are not entitled to an assumption of truth,
    and even those allegations pleaded with factual support need only be accepted insofar as “they
    plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 
    129 S. Ct. at 1950
    .
    III. ANALYSIS
    A.     Municipal Liability Under § 1983 for Alleged Constitutional Violations
    Section 1983 creates a private cause of action against any person who, acting under color
    of state or District of Columbia law, deprives another of a federal constitutional or statutory
    right. 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    . Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell v. New York City
    Department of Social Services, 
    436 U.S. 658
     (1978), “municipalities are liable for their agents’
    constitutional torts only if the agents acted pursuant to municipal policy or custom . . . .
    Respondeat superior liability does not apply.” Warren v. District of Columbia, 
    353 F.3d 36
    , 38
    (D.C. Cir. 2004) (citing Monell, 
    436 U.S. at 694
    ). To state a § 1983 claim against the District,
    then, a plaintiff “must allege not only a violation of his rights under the Constitution or federal
    law, but also that the [District’s] custom or policy caused the violation.” Id. (citing Collins v.
    City of Harker Heights, 
    503 U.S. 115
    , 123-24 (1992)). “The plaintiff bears the burden of
    pleading the existence of a municipal custom or practice that abridge[d] her federal constitutional
    or statutory rights.” Trimble v. District of Columbia, 
    779 F. Supp. 2d 54
    , 57 (D.D.C. 2011). A
    plaintiff may satisfy this burden by alleging that (1) “the municipality or one of its policymakers
    explicitly adopted the policy that was ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation,’” Warren,
    
    353 F.3d at 39
     (quoting Monell, 
    436 U.S. at 694
    ); (2) “a policymaker ‘knowingly ignore[d] a
    practice that was consistent enough to constitute custom,’” Jones v. Horne, 
    634 F.3d 588
    , 601
    4
    (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Warren, 
    353 F.3d at 39
    ); or (3) the municipality “failed to respond to a
    need . . . in such a manner as to show ‘deliberate indifference’ to the risk that not addressing the
    need will result in constitutional violations,” 
    id.
     (quoting Baker v. District of Columbia, 
    326 F.3d 1302
    , 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).
    In attempting to identify a municipal custom or policy that caused the alleged violations
    of their constitutional rights, the plaintiffs claim that the District’s officers executed the search
    warrant on their apartment pursuant to the
    District’s long standing policy, practice, and custom that allows police officers to
    execute search warrants[] without training its officers how to properly execute a
    search warrant to insure that [it is] not executed in violation of the requirements of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3109
    ,[2] and the Fourth Amendment of the United States
    Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is the
    execution of this long standing policy, practice, and/or custom that caused the
    Plaintiff’s injuries, alleged in this complaint.
    Am. Compl. ¶ 7. From these allegations it appears that the plaintiffs are seeking to predicate the
    District’s liability on a failure to train theory. As this Court has recognized, “only in limited
    circumstances can a municipality’s failure to train employees constitute a policy or practice, and
    thus serve as the basis for municipal liability.” Davis v. District of Columbia, ___ F. Supp. 2d
    ___, ___, 
    2011 WL 3240439
    , at *5 (D.D.C. 2011) (Walton, J.) (citing Atchinson v. District of
    Columbia, 
    73 F.3d 418
    , 421 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). The Supreme Court recently expounded in detail
    upon the standards governing municipal liability based on a failure to train theory:
    2
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3109
     provides as follows:
    The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house,
    or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is
    refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution
    of the warrant.
    The statute codifies the common law knock-and-announce requirement, a requirement which is also incorporated in
    the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Sutherland, 
    466 F.3d 1083
    , 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Circuit found in
    Sutherland that Ҥ 3109 and the Fourth Amendment have merged both in the standards governing entries into the
    home and in the remedy for violations of those standards. There is now one uniform knock-and-announce rule.” Id.
    at 1085-86.
    5
    A municipality’s culpability for a deprivation of rights is at its most tenuous
    where a claim turns on a failure to train . . . . To satisfy [§ 1983], a municipality’s
    failure to train its employees in a relevant respect must amount to “deliberate
    indifference to the rights of persons with whom the [untrained employees] come
    into contact.” Canton [v. Harris, 
    489 U.S. 378
    , 388 (1989)]. Only then “can such
    a shortcoming be properly thought of as a city ‘policy or custom’ that is
    actionable under § 1983.” Id. at 389 . . . . “‘[D]eliberate indifference’ is a
    stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a
    known or obvious consequence of his action.” [Board of Comm’rs of Bryan Cty.
    v. Brown, 
    520 U.S. 397
    , 410 (1997)]. Thus, when city policymakers are on actual
    or constructive notice that a particular omission in their training program causes
    city employees to violate citizens’ constitutional rights, the city may be deemed
    deliberately indifferent if the policymakers choose to retain that program. 
    Id.
     at
    407 . . . . A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is
    “ordinarily necessary” to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of
    failure to train. [Id. at 409]. Policymakers’ “continued adherence to an approach
    that they know or should know has failed to prevent tortious conduct by
    employees may establish the conscious disregard for the consequences of their
    action—the ‘deliberate indifference’—necessary to trigger municipal liability.”
    [Id. at 407]. Without notice that a course of training is deficient in a particular
    respect, decisionmakers can hardly be said to have deliberately chosen a training
    program that will cause violations of constitutional rights.
    Connick v. Thompson, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 
    131 S. Ct. 1350
    , 1359-60 (2011).
    While the plaintiffs have alleged in conclusory terms that the District failed to train its
    officers regarding the lawful execution of search warrants, Am. Compl. ¶ 7, they have pleaded
    no facts indicating that the District’s decisionmakers knew or should have known of any
    deficiencies in the training of its police officers concerning the execution of search warrants such
    that the District could be deemed “deliberately indifferent” towards citizens’ constitutional
    rights, Connick, 
    131 S. Ct. at 1360
    . For instance, the plaintiffs have not alleged a “pattern of
    similar constitutional violations by untrained employees.” 
    Id.
     They instead rely solely upon the
    alleged unconstitutional search of their apartment as the basis for their claim against the District.
    Without further factual enhancement, the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to state a
    plausible claim of municipal liability against the District based on its improper training of its
    police officers. See, e.g., Davis, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 
    2011 WL 3240439
    , at *5 (dismissing §
    6
    1983 claims against the District where the plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that the District
    acted with deliberate indifference in failing to train its officers); Robertson v. District of
    Columbia, 
    2010 WL 3238996
    , at *8 (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2010) (same); see also Trimble, 
    779 F. Supp. 2d at 59
     (“merely speculating that an unidentified policy and uncorroborated practice or
    custom exists without providing any factual heft to support the allegation is insufficient to state a
    claim under § 1983”).
    The plaintiffs contend in their opposition brief that “Monell does not require that the
    execution of the government’s policy or custom be unconstitutional.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 2. Rather,
    the plaintiffs assert that “Monell only requires that the acts represent official policy.” Id.
    Because the “execution of a search warrant is pursuant to an official policy,” the plaintiffs claim
    that the District may be held liable for the officers’ alleged unlawful execution of the search
    warrant on their apartment. Id. The plaintiffs misconstrue the Monell municipal liability
    standard. As the Court made clear in Monell, “the touchstone of the § 1983 action against a
    government body is an allegation that official policy is responsible for a deprivation of rights
    protected by the Constitution.” 
    436 U.S. at 690
     (emphasis added). In other words, it is not
    enough that a municipal official engaged in unconstitutional conduct while acting pursuant to a
    wholly legitimate, official policy of his employer. If that were the case, then municipalities
    would effectively be subject to respondeat superior liability for unconstitutional acts committed
    by their employees in their official capacities. That is precisely the rule that the Monell Court
    rejected when it adopted the “policy or custom” standard for municipal liability—a standard that
    the plaintiffs’ allegations fail to satisfy.
    Thus, because the plaintiffs have asserted only conclusory allegations of insufficient
    training devoid of factual support, their § 1983 claims against the District must be dismissed.
    7
    B.         Other Asserted Bases for Municipal Liability
    The remaining counts in the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint merit only brief
    discussion. Counts II and III seek damages for the District’s alleged violations of the plaintiffs’
    rights under the Fourth Amendment and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3109
    , and are based on the same factual
    allegations as the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-23. Regarding the Fourth
    Amendment claim, the plaintiffs cannot evade the strictures of Monell by styling their claim as a
    direct violation of the Constitution as opposed to a claim brought under § 1983. See Tarpley v.
    Greene, 
    684 F.2d 1
    , 9-11 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (applying rationale of Monell and holding that
    municipalities may not be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior for claims brought
    directly under the Constitution). As for the plaintiffs’ claim under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3109
    , no
    provision of that statute creates an express private cause of action for damages against a
    municipality, nor do the plaintiffs cite any authority or offer any arguments supporting the
    existence of an implied cause of action under the statute. Accordingly, both counts must be
    dismissed.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the District’s motion to dismiss pursuant
    to Rule 12(b)(6), and dismiss the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint.
    SO ORDERED this 1st day of December, 2011. 3
    REGGIE B. WALTON
    United States District Judge
    3
    The Court will contemporaneously issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
    8