Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
DAVID OLABAYO OLANIYI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 05-455 (RBW)
v. )
) Consolidated with:
)
) Civil Action No. 06-2165 (RBW)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff David Olabayo Olaniyi brings this action against the District of Columbia
(“District”) and the United States, asserting constitutional and common law claims arising from
his detention in March of 2003, and a separate incident involving a traffic stop in January of
2004. See generally Second Amended Complaint (“2d Am. Compl.”); Complaint (“United
States Compl.”). 1 Currently before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by the
District and the United States. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, 2 the Court
concludes for the following reasons that the defendants’ motions must be granted.
1
Olaniyi instituted two lawsuits that were subsequently consolidated by the Court. The complaint in Civil Action
No. 05-455 asserts claims against the District as well as several federal and District employees, and will be referred
to in this Memorandum Opinion as the Second Amended Complaint. The complaint in Civil Action No. 06-2165
asserts claims solely against the United States government, and will be referred to as the United States Complaint.
2
In addition to the filings identified, the Court considered the following documents and their supporting exhibits in
rendering its decision: (1) the District’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“District’s Mem.”); (2) the District
of Columbia’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“District’s Facts”); (3) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“United States’s Mem.”); (4) the United States’s
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“United States’s Facts”); (5) the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Opposition to Defendant District of Columbia’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s District
Opp’n”); (6) Plaintiff David Olabayo Olaniyi’s Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact in Dispute (“Pl.’s
Response to District’s Facts”); (7) the Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant
United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s United States Opp’n”); (8) the Plaintiff’s Statement of
(continued . . .)
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
Many of Olaniyi’s claims have already been dismissed by the Court. See Olaniyi v.
District of Columbia, 416 F. Supp. 2d 43, 59-60 (D.D.C. 2006); Olaniyi v. District of Columbia,
763 F. Supp. 2d 70, 78 (D.D.C. 2011). Olaniyi’s remaining claims in this case arise from the
following two events: the alleged forcible injection of Olaniyi by District personnel with an
unknown drug in March of 2003, and a traffic stop conducted by the United States Capitol Police
(“Capitol Police”) in January of 2004. The following facts recounting these two events are
undisputed unless otherwise noted, and are presented in the light most favorable to Olaniyi.
1. The March 2003 Forcible Injection
Olaniyi, a native of Nigeria, describes himself as “an artist, philosopher, scholar,
performer, and director.” 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 3. On March 6, 2003, Olaniyi and his now-wife,
Reena Patel Olaniyi (“Patel”), visited the United States Capitol Building “to tour and conduct
research for his stage play.” Id. ¶¶ 65-66. Olaniyi was wearing “an artistic garment that he made
out of cardboard, empty bottles, newspaper, a book, and other common materials secured with
duct tape.” Pl.’s Response to District’s Facts ¶ 1. “He also carried a stone sculpture.” Id. Upon
entering the Capitol Building with this paraphernalia, Olaniyi “began to sing and dance,” which
“attracted the attention of the Capitol Police.” District’s Facts ¶¶ 2-3. The Capitol Police
“detained and thereafter arrested [Olaniyi] and searched his car on suspicion that he was going to
(. . . continued)
Material Facts in Dispute (“Pl.’s Response to United States’s Facts”); (9) Defendant District of Columbia’s Reply to
the Plaintiff’s Opposition to the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“District’s Reply”); and (10) the Reply to
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant United States’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (“United States’s Reply”).
2
bomb the Capitol.” Id. ¶ 3. “Olaniyi appeared before a Federal Magistrate Judge on the morning
of March 7, 2003, who held him over until March 10, 2003.” Id. ¶ 4.
Olaniyi was detained at the Mental Health Unit of the District of Columbia Jail (“D.C.
Jail”) during the period of his detention under the Magistrate Judge’s order. Id. ¶ 5; Pl’s
Response to District’s Facts ¶ 5. According to Olaniyi, at some point during his detention at the
D.C. Jail, he was forcibly injected with a drug that caused him to lose consciousness. See Pl.’s
District Opp’n, Exhibit (“Ex.”) D (Deposition of Olabayo David Olaniyi (“Olaniyi Dep.”)) at
187:4-190:25, 196:1-3. Specifically, he claims that a D.C. Jail employee gave him an injection
in his left arm while a guard restrained him, despite his verbal objections to receiving the
injection. See id. Olaniyi maintains that prior to giving him the injection “[t]hey told [him] they
were treating [him] for diabetes,” which they claimed had been detected by testing conducted
during his detention. Id. at 194:10-13. Olaniyi explained that he did not have diabetes, but they
nonetheless administered the injection. See id. at 194:13-16. The medical personnel did not tell
Olaniyi what drug they used, and Olaniyi does not know what it was. See id. at 190:10-17.
Olaniyi claims that “when the injection was given, things calm[ed] down, and . . . everything just
whitewashed out.” Id. at 190:24-25. He then “lost consciousness.” Id. at 198:20-23. Olaniyi’s
next memory is waking up in his jail cell “the following morning.” Id. at 196:3. Olaniyi
acknowledges that no medical record exists documenting the injection, attributing the lack of
documentation to deficient record-keeping practices at the D.C. Jail. See Pl.’s Response to
District’s Facts ¶ 34. The District denies that this incident occurred, asserting that “Olaniyi was
tested, but not treated[,] for diabetes.” District’s Facts ¶ 25.
On March 10, 2003, federal prosecutors charged Olaniyi and Patel with “False Bomb
Threats, Disorderly Conduct on Capitol Grounds, Aiding and Abetting, and Assault or
3
Threatened Assault.” Id. ¶ 6. Olaniyi was then released from the D.C. Jail on March 11, 2003.
District’s Facts ¶ 31. The government dismissed all charges against Olaniyi and Patel in August
of 2003. 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 78.
2. The January 2004 Traffic Stop
On January 20, 2004, Olaniyi, his two minor children, and Patel traveled to the District
from Michigan. United States’s Facts ¶¶ 1-2. The purpose of the trip was to retrieve several
pieces of artwork that had been confiscated by the Capitol Police as a result of the March 2003
event at the Capitol Building. United States Compl. ¶ 34. During their cross-country trip,
Olaniyi’s vehicle, a white van, “accumulated dirt and grime from driving through snow.” United
States’s Facts ¶ 3. The van’s license plate had “accumulated dirt and grime as well.” Id. ¶ 4. In
addition to “the dirt covering the windows, the windows themselves were tinted a dark shade.”
Id. ¶ 5.
Olaniyi’s trip to the District coincided with former President George W. Bush’s State of
Union Address. Id. ¶ 6. The Capitol Police were accordingly “on high alert and fully staffed” on
that date. Id.
Olaniyi claims that while he and his family were riding in his van in the District, a
Capitol Police officer, Sergeant Jessica Gissubel, 3 signaled him to stop the van in front of
Capitol Police headquarters. 4 See Pl.’s Response to United States’s Facts ¶ 7; Pl.’s United States
Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Olaniyi Dep.) at 70:6-16. Capitol Police headquarters “is located directly adjacent
to the United States Capitol, where the President planned to deliver his State of the Union
3
Sergeant Jessica Gissubel has since married and changed her name to Jessica Baboulis. United States’s Facts ¶ 9.
4
The United States maintains that Olaniyi’s van was already parked illegally in front of Capitol Police headquarters
when Sergeant Gissubel arrived on the scene, and that Sergeant Gissubel did not pull over the van. See United
States’s Facts ¶ 7; United States’s Mem. at 3 n.3. However, in moving for summary judgment, the United States
correctly assumes Olaniyi’s version of events as true (i.e., that Sergeant Gissubel pulled him over), and analyzes his
claims accordingly. See United States’s Reply at 2-3. The Court, as it must, will do the same.
4
address.” United States’s Facts ¶ 8. Sergeant Gissubel does not recall “being able to read the
license plate on [Olaniyi’s] van when she initially saw it.” Id. ¶ 10. After pulling the van over,
she “radioed headquarters and requested a canine unit and the hazardous device unit to ‘check
out [the] vehicle.’” Id. ¶ 11.
“When [Sergeant] Gissubel approached the vehicle, [Olaniyi] asked [for] Detective
Joseph DePalma,” id. ¶ 12, one of the officers who had “arrested and jailed” Olaniyi in
connection with the March 2003 incident at the Capitol Building, Pl.’s District Opp’n at 7. In
response to Olaniyi’s request, Sergeant “Gissubel called [Detective] DePalma, advising him of
the vehicle in front of [Capitol Police] headquarters and requested his presence on the scene.”
United States’s Facts ¶ 12. Detective “DePalma arrived on the scene shortly thereafter.” Id. ¶
13. “He spoke to [Olaniyi] and requested that [he] exit the vehicle.” Id. Olaniyi “obliged and
began to converse with [Detective] DePalma.” Id.
Olaniyi’s van was then searched by the Capitol Police’s canine unit. Id. ¶ 14. “Olaniyi’s
two minor children remained in the van while it was searched by police officers and two
canines.” Pl.’s Response to United States’s Facts ¶ 13; Pl.’s United States Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Olaniyi
Dep.) at 67:13-19. “[N]o [p]olice dog growled at or bit any member of [Olaniyi’s] family, and
the children were not heard crying or screaming in any way during the canine sweep of the van,
which last no more than 5 minutes.” United States’s Facts ¶ 14. And “the dog[] search did not
damage [Olaniyi’s] vehicle.” Id. The “canine sweep” took only “a few minutes . . . because it
was the day of the State of the Union Address and the canine officers were extremely busy, given
the large number of vehicles they were called upon to sweep.” Id. ¶ 29.
Following the canine sweep, Patel “began recording a video of the events that transpired
in front of [Capitol Police] headquarters.” Id. ¶ 15. “On the video recording, [Detective]
5
DePalma audibly tells [Olaniyi] that his license plate was dirty, obscuring an officer’s ability to
read it.” Id. ¶ 16; see United States’s Mem., Ex. 7 (Video of January 20, 2004 Traffic Stop).
Detective “DePalma then advised [Olaniyi] that he was likely to be pulled over again if his
vehicle remained in the same condition.” United States’s Facts ¶ 16. Heeding this advice,
Olaniyi “cleaned the partially obscured license plate with a rag while [Detective] DePalma
observed.” Id. ¶ 17. Detective DePalma also questioned Olaniyi about his presence in the
District, noting that the President’s State of the Union Address was scheduled for that evening
and asking Olaniyi “are you going to pull a stunt?” Pl.’s United States Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Deposition
of Reena Patel Olaniyi (“Patel Dep.”)) at 44:13-45:7. Detective DePalma then asked Olaniyi a
series of questions concerning the custody of his children. Id. at 45:21-23. During the
encounter, Olaniyi explained that he requested Detective DePalma’s presence so that his son
could “‘see the man who tried to make me lose my children,’ referring to [Detective] DePalma’s
. . . involvement in [Olaniyi’s] arrest in 2003 for false bomb threats.” United States’s Facts ¶ 18;
see United States’s Mem., Ex. 7 (Video of January 20, 2004 Traffic Stop).
After completing “a routine background check for outstanding warrants,” Sergeant
Gissubel returned Olaniyi’s driver’s license “and sent him on his way.” United States’s Facts ¶
19. The Capitol Police did not “issue [Olaniyi] a citation for the incident, nor did they seize any
of [Olaniyi’s] property.” Id. However, “as [Olaniyi] was leaving the scene of the incident,
[Sergeant] Gissubel issued [him] a verbal warning that he was parked illegally.” Id. ¶ 22. None
of the Capitol Police officers made threatening remarks, raised their voices, brandished weapons,
or physically restrained Olaniyi or his family during the January 20, 2004, encounter. Id. ¶¶ 20-
21. “The total duration of the incident was approximately 18 minutes.” Id. ¶ 23.
6
B. Procedural Background
Olaniyi instituted this action on March 3, 2005, asserting constitutional and common law
claims against the District and several federal defendants. By Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated February 17, 2006, the Court granted dismissal of many of Olaniyi’s claims on qualified
immunity grounds, but denied the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Olaniyi’s
Fourth Amendment claims arising from a search of his van that was conducted following the
March 2003 incident at the Capitol Building. See Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 416 F. Supp.
2d 43, 59-60 (D.D.C. 2006).
On October 31, 2006, Olaniyi filed his Second Amended Complaint, again asserting
constitutional and common law claims against the District, as well as various District and federal
employees. See generally 2d Am. Compl. These claims stem from his arrest and detention in
March 2003, and the traffic stop in January 2004. See id. Olaniyi then filed a separate
complaint against the United States on December 20, 2006, alleging tort claims pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C §§ 1346(b), 2674 (2006), arising out of the March
2003 and January 2004 incidents. See generally United States Compl.
The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion on February 4, 2011, granting in part and
denying in part the United States’s motion to dismiss, denying the District’s motion for summary
judgment without prejudice pending further discovery, and granting summary judgment to the
individual defendants. See Olaniyi v. District of Columbia, 763 F. Supp. 2d 70, 78 (D.D.C.
2011). As a result of the Court’s rulings, Olaniyi’s remaining claims in this case are (1) a claim
against the District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution for the alleged forcible injection of Olaniyi by District authorities in March of 2003,
see id. at 96-99; and (2) a false arrest and imprisonment tort claim against the United States,
7
brought pursuant to the FTCA, arising out of the January 2004 traffic stop, see id. at 92-94. The
defendants have now moved for summary judgment on these two claims.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion for summary judgment must be granted “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of
a disputed material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The party opposing
a motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his
pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material fact is one that “might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. “The evidence is to be viewed in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and the court must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Talavera v. Shah, 638 F.3d 303, 308 (D.C. Cir.
2011) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). “Although summary judgment is not the occasion for
the court to weigh credibility or evidence, summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the nonmoving
party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Id. (citations
omitted). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving
party for a [reasonable] jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. “The
mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient;
there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252
(emphasis added).
8
III. ANALYSIS
A. Olaniyi’s Claim Against the District Based on the March 2003 Forcible Injection
Olaniyi asserts a § 1983 claim against the District “predicated upon the deprivation of
due process he suffered when D.C. Jail personnel forcibly, and without consent, injected [him]
with an antipsychotic drug.” Pl.’s District Opp’n at 5. 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. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Supreme
Court’s decision in Monell v. 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). Courts
therefore “conduct a two-step inquiry” in evaluating § 1983 claims against municipalities. Baker
v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003). First, a court must determine
whether the plaintiff has offered proof of a “predicate constitutional violation.” 5 Id. Second, if
step one is satisfied, a court must then assess whether the plaintiff has provided evidence “that a
custom or policy of the municipality caused the violation.” Id. In this case, the Court need not
address whether Olaniyi has established a predicate constitutional violation because, even
assuming such a violation occurred, he has offered no evidence of a “custom or policy” of the
District that “caused the violation.” Id.
5
The Court previously rejected the District’s attempt to avoid liability by relying on the fact that the D.C. Jail
personnel were actually independent contractors, rather than District employees. See Olaniyi, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 97
n.23. As the Court reasoned, the “employees at the [D.C. Jail’s] Mental Health Unit were performing a municipal
function, in a municipal facility, under authority granted to them by municipal law,” and thus “the District cannot
avoid liability merely because [Olaniyi’s] alleged injury occurred at the hands of a third party contracted to perform
the services he claims caused him injury.” Id.
9
1. Municipal Liability of the District Under § 1983
A plaintiff can establish municipal liability under § 1983 by showing 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 (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, 326 F.3d at 1306).
Olaniyi invokes the “deliberate indifference” theory of municipal liability, claiming that
“[t]here is ample evidence in the record that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the
deprivation of [his] constitutional rights, in the form of his forcible injection with a psychoactive
drug, was the direct result of the District’s deliberate indifference to the risks created by the state
of medical and mental health care at the D.C. Jail during the timeframe that Olaniyi was held
there.” Pl.’s District Opp’n at 11. Olaniyi argues that the District’s deliberate indifference was
manifested both in its failure to train medical personnel at the D.C. Jail, and its failure to monitor
the provision of medical services by contractors at the Jail. See id. at 11-20. He further contends
that “[t]he District received repeated notice of problems and abuses” at the D.C. Jail, but “failed
to do anything about it.” Id. at 11.
The Supreme Court recently expounded upon the standards governing municipal liability
based on a deliberate indifference theory in Connick v. Thompson, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1350
(2011). The plaintiff in that case brought a § 1983 claim against a district attorney, Harry
Connick, in his official capacity, after his office “conceded that, in prosecuting [the plaintiff] for
10
attempted armed robbery, prosecutors failed to disclose evidence that should have been turned
over to the defense under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 . . . (1963).” Id. at 1355. According
to the plaintiff, “Connick had failed to train his prosecutors adequately about their duty to
produce exculpatory evidence and that the lack of training had caused the nondisclosure in [the
plaintiff’s] robbery case.” Id. at 1355. After a jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor and
the Fifth Circuit affirmed that verdict, the Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 1355-56.
The Court began its analysis in Connick by explaining that under the plaintiff’s “failure-
to-train theory, he bore the burden of proving both (1) that Connick, the policymaker for the
district attorney’s office, was deliberately indifferent to the need to train the prosecutors about
their Brady disclosure obligation with respect to evidence of this type and (2) that the lack of
training actually caused the Brady violation in this case.” Id. at 1358. Going no further than the
first prong of this analysis, the Court held that the plaintiff “did not prove that [Connick] was on
actual or constructive notice of, and therefore deliberately indifferent to, a need for more or
different Brady training.” Id. In so holding, the Court was guided by the following principles:
In limited circumstances, a local government’s decision not to train certain
employees about their legal duty to avoid violating citizens’ rights may rise to the
level of an official government policy for purposes of § 1983. 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 the statute, 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.” Only
then “can such a shortcoming be properly thought of as a city ‘policy or custom’
that is actionable under § 1983.”
“‘[D]eliberate indifference’ is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a
municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.”
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. The city’s “policy of inaction” in
light of notice that its program will cause constitutional violations “is the
functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution.”
11
A less stringent standard of fault for a failure-to-train claim “would result in de
facto respondeat superior liability on municipalities . . .”
A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is
“ordinarily necessary” to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of
failure to train. 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.” 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.
Id. at 1359-60 (internal citations omitted). Applying these standards, the Court declined to
impose municipal liability because there was no evidence that would have “put Connick on
notice that the office’s Brady training was inadequate with respect to the sort of Brady violation
at issue.” Id. at 1360. Namely, the plaintiff “did not prove a pattern of similar violations that
would ‘establish that the policy of inaction [was] the functional equivalent of a decision by the
city itself to violate the Constitution.’” Id. at 1366 (citation omitted and emphasis added). The
Court also concluded that the case did “not fall within the narrow range of ‘single-incident’
liability hypothesized in Canton [v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)] as a possible exception to the
pattern of violations necessary to prove deliberate indifference in § 1983 actions alleging failure
to train.” Id. at 1366.
In support of his failure-to-train theory, Olaniyi contends that “the record shows little if
any effort by the District . . . to ensure that the medical and mental health personnel at D.C. Jail
were adequately trained with respect to patient care in general, and inmates’ constitutional right
to refuse treatment in particular.” Pl.’s District Opp’n at 11. He focuses on the lack of evidence
from the District showing that it had effective “procedures and policies in place with respect to
training or mental health personnel prior to or during the time that Olaniyi was held in [the] D.C.
12
Jail, in March 2003,” id. at 12, and asserts that the District knew of the risk of constitutional
violations associated with its failure to train its employees, see id. at 16-20.
Olaniyi’s failure-to-train theory is flawed for several reasons. For starters, the evidence
offered by Olaniyi concerning deficiencies at the D.C. Jail “with respect to patient care in
general,” id. at 11 (emphasis added); see id. at 16-20 (detailing various deficiencies with medical
services at the D.C. Jail that the District allegedly failed to remediate), is insufficient to establish
deliberate indifference in this case. Showing a history of general problems with medical care at
the D.C. Jail does not suffice. Olaniyi must instead point to past incidents that were “similar to
the violation at issue here,” such that a reasonable jury could find that the District was “on notice
that specific training was necessary to avoid this constitutional violation.” Connick, __ U.S. at
__, 131 S. Ct. at 1360 (emphasis added). The necessity of a close link between the alleged
pattern of constitutional violations and the alleged injury was illustrated in Connick. There, the
Court rejected the plaintiff’s purported showing of deliberate indifference based on four prior
overturned convictions resulting from Brady violations by the same district attorney’s office that
subsequently violated the plaintiff’s Brady rights. Id. As the Court reasoned, “[t]hose four
reversals could not have put Connick on notice that the office’s Brady training was inadequate
with respect to the sort of Brady violation at issue here [because n]one of those cases involved
failure to disclose blood evidence, a crime lab report, or physical or scientific evidence of any
kind.” Id. “Because those incidents are not similar to the violation at issue here,” the Court
concluded, “they could not have put Connick on notice that specific training was necessary to
avoid this constitutional violation.” Id. Applying Connick’s rationale here, past alleged
deficiencies in medical services at the D.C. Jail that were unrelated to the unconstitutional forced
medication of inmates could not have put the District on notice of the need for training to avoid
13
the particular constitutional violation at issue, and thus cannot sustain a finding of deliberate
indifference in this case.
The Court must therefore examine whether Olaniyi has marshaled any evidence showing
a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained or inadequately trained employees at
the D.C. Jail that could have put the District on notice of the need for more training with respect
to forced medication of inmates. He has not. The closest Olaniyi comes to offering such
evidence is the deposition testimony of one of his treating nurses (Clarice Savoy) while he was
detained at the D.C. Jail, who Olaniyi claims admitted “that the forcible medication of inmates
with a doctor’s order ‘happens a lot’” at the D.C. Jail. Pls.’ District Opp’n at 14 (quoting id., Ex.
F (Deposition of Clarice Savoy (“Savoy Dep.”)) at 27:22-28:7). But Olaniyi’s selective
quotation of Savoy’s deposition takes her testimony of out of context. Savoy actually gave the
following testimony:
Q Let me ask you: Did you receive any training on when you were allowed
to administer medications to an inmate without that inmate’s consent?
A The reason that I’m hesitating is because sometimes, if the psychiatrist
evaluates a patient and the patient was not willing to take the medication
but he was in danger of himself or someone else, yes, he was given
medication. I will say that, but it always had to be ordered by the doctor
or the psychiatrist.
Q Do you remember specific instances when the doctor ordered medications
for a patient who refused it?
A Well, yes. It happens a lot. That’s when the psychiatrist was receiving the
call and said this patient is in danger of—and if there was a STAT Order
written for the medication, he was given the medication.
****
Q And can you describe for me one of the specific examples of specific
instances you remember when a patient was given medication without that
patient’s consent?
14
A If—this is not the incident that happened. [But i]f the patient was banging
his head against the wall and he was bleeding profusely, out of control, he
would get a STAT medication if there was one ordered.
Pl.’s District Opp’n, Ex. F (Savoy Dep.) at 27:11-28:7; 28:11-19. Viewed in context, Savoy’s
testimony indicates that medical personnel at the D.C. Jail administered medication to inmates
without their consent “a lot,” but only when the inmate presented a danger to himself or others
and a doctor ordered that the medication be administered. See id. Notably, forced medication
under such circumstances comports with established constitutional standards. See Washington v.
Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 227 (1990) (holding that, “given the requirements of the prison
environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious
mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or
others and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest”). Thus, rather than indicating a
pattern of similar constitutional violations at the D.C. Jail, Savoy’s testimony suggests a history
of compliance with constitutional standards.
Similarly unavailing is Olaniyi’s reliance on the deposition testimony of another nurse
(Juanita Wilder) at the D.C. Jail. According to Olaniyi, Wilder testified that “she had no
obligation to inform inmates that they had a right to refuse medication.” Pl.’s District Opp’n at
14 (citing id., Ex. G (Deposition of Juanita M. Wilder, RN (“Wilder Dep.”)) at 64:8-12).
Wilder’s actual testimony, however, was as follows:
Q And why would a doctor order the use of psychotropic medication?
A Because the patient had medical—I mean a mental condition.
Q What type of mental condition?
A Oh, boy. Let me see. Maybe they are talking to voices. They hear
someone talking to them so they are talking, and there’s nobody else
around, but they are answering like they are talking to somebody else, you
know.
15
Q And so if someone was talking to voices or hearing voices—
A The doctor may order something.
****
Q . . . [P]sychotropic drugs?
A Yeah, psychotropic.
Q And how does it work when a patient is hearing voices? Are they able to
give consent to that medication?
A Oh, yes. They can say I want it or I don’t want it, or, just—you know, a
lot of times you say it’s time for your injection or time for your pills or,
whichever, and they say ok, and they just cooperate.
Q And do you tell as a matter of practice typically would you tell the patient
you don’t have to take this if you don’t want to?
A You don’t have to say that. They know that.
Q Okay.
A You don’t want to encourage a patient not to take something that the
doctor has ordered because a doctor has ordered it for his own good.
District’s Mem., Ex. 11 (Wilder Dep.) at 63:4-64:16. Fairly construed, Wilder’s testimony does
not reflect a belief that she generally “had no obligation to inform inmates that they had a right to
refuse medication,” as represented by Olaniyi. Pl.’s District Opp’n at 14. Rather, she testified
that when a doctor ordered psychotropic medication for a delusional patient, she would not
inform the patient of their right to refuse the medication under those particular circumstances,
because they know they have the right to do so. See District’s Mem., Ex. 11 (Wilder Dep.) at
63:4-64:16.
More to the point, Olaniyi does not explain how Wilder’s testimony suggests a pattern of
constitutional violations similar to the one alleged in this case. Nor could he, given that the
constitutional violation alleged here concerns the right to refuse medical treatment, not the right
16
to be informed of the right to refuse medical treatment. Olaniyi also overlooks passages from
Wilder’s deposition testimony demonstrating her awareness of and sensitivity to the right of
inmates to refuse medical treatment, which undermines a finding that there was a pattern of
unconstitutional forced medications at the D.C. Jail. See, e.g., Pl.’s District Opp’n, Ex. G
(Wilder Dep.) at 38:18-21 (“The patients always have a right to refuse medical treatment if they
don’t want it. And if you try to force it on, then you are abusing them.”); id. at 39:7-10 (“[Y]ou
don’t force a patient if they say no, you know. If they don’t want an injection and they refuse it,
you just write it in your notes that they refused.”); id. at 39:19-21 (“If the patient refuses
medication, you can’t just force it on them.”). In short, neither the testimony of Savoy nor
Wilder supports Olaniyi’s failure-to-train theory of liability.
Olaniyi also seeks to show deliberate indifference through the District’s alleged failure to
monitor its contractor at the D.C. Jail, the Center for Correctional Health Policy and Studies
(“CCHPS”). See Pls.’ District Opp’n at 14-16. But here again, Olaniyi fails to show a pattern
of unconstitutional forced medications by the CCHPS personnel at the D.C. Jail that could have
put the District on notice of the need for enhanced supervision. Olaniyi instead maintains that
the District generally failed to oversee the CCHPS’s operations, and that this “complete lack of
monitoring of [the] CCHPS led to Olaniyi’s forcible injection.” Id. at 15. Yet, without a history
of prior, similar violations, this claim essentially seeks to impose negligence liability on the
District for a single incident resulting from the District’s alleged inadequate supervision of the
CCHPS personnel. Such conduct does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See
Warren, 353 F.3d at 39 (“‘Deliberate indifference,’ . . . is an objective standard[] [that] involves
more than mere negligence. It does not require the city to take reasonable care to discover and
prevent constitutional violations. It simply means that, faced with actual or constructive
17
knowledge that its agents will probably violate constitutional rights, the city may not adopt a
policy of inaction.” (citations omitted and emphasis in original)); see also Connick, __ U.S. at
__, 131 S. Ct. at 1360 (“The city’s ‘policy of inaction’ in light of notice that its program will
cause constitutional violations ‘is the functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to
violate the Constitution.’ A less stringent standard of fault for a failure-to-train claim ‘would
result in de facto respondeat superior liability on municipalities.’” (citations omitted)).
In sum, Olaniyi has not shown a pattern of unconstitutional forced medications at the
D.C. Jail that a reasonable jury could find put the District on notice that either more training or
enhanced supervision was necessary to prevent the specific constitutional violation at issue.
Because such evidence is “‘ordinarily necessary’” for a municipality to be held liable under §
1983 for failing to train or supervise its employees, 6 Connick, __ U.S. at__, 131 S. Ct. at 1360
(citation omitted), and because Olaniyi has presented no other basis for imposing municipal
liability, the District is entitled to summary judgment on Olaniyi’s § 1983 claim.
B. Olaniyi’s Claim Against the United States Based on the January 2004 Traffic Stop
Olaniyi asserts a common law tort claim against the United States for false arrest and
imprisonment arising from the January 2004 traffic stop conducted by the Capitol Police. See
United States Compl. ¶¶ 46-49. The FTCA makes the United States liable for torts committed
by its agents “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like
circumstances,” 28 U.S.C. § 2674, “in accordance with the law of the place where the act or
6
As noted, the Court in Connick did discuss, with some skepticism, a “narrow range of ‘single-incident’ liability,”
which was “hypothesized in Canton as a possible exception to the pattern of violations necessary to prove deliberate
indifference in § 1983 actions alleging failure to train.” __ U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct at 1366. Olaniyi does not assert
that this case fits the “narrow” category of single-incident liability “hypothesized” in Canton, and the Court
consequently will not consider that possibility. Nor will the Court address whether Olaniyi has presented sufficient
evidence on the element of causation, which requires proof “that the lack of training [or supervision] actually caused
the [constitutional] violation in this case.” Id. at 1359.
18
omission occurred,” id. § 1346(b)(1). Under District of Columbia law, the torts of false arrest
and false imprisonment are “indistinguishable as a practical matter,” Enders v. District of
Columbia, 4 A.3d 457, 461 (D.C. 2010), so the Court will treat Olaniyi’s claim simply as one for
false arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, a plaintiff must show that he was unlawfully
detained. Id. “The detention of a plaintiff by a defendant police officer is lawful if the officer
effected the detention constitutionally—that is, with probable cause if the detention was an
arrest, or upon reasonable suspicion if the detention amounted only to a Terry stop.” Zhi Chen v.
District of Columbia, 808 F. Supp. 2d 252, 257 (D.D.C. 2011). Alternatively, regardless of
whether the detention was constitutional, “‘a police officer may justify an arrest by
demonstrating that (1) he or she believed, in good faith, that his or her conduct was lawful, and
(2) this belief was reasonable.’” Weishapl v. Sowers, 771 A.2d 1014, 1020-21 (D.C. 2001)
(citation omitted); accord Minch v. District of Columbia, 952 A.2d 929, 937 (D.C. 2008). The
issues of probable cause and reasonable suspicion “‘ordinarily [present] mixed question[s] of law
and fact; however, where the facts are not in dispute , . . . the issue becomes a purely legal one
which the Court can answer on its own.’” Minch, 952 A.2d at 937 (citation omitted).
Noting that Olaniyi was not arrested during the January 2004 traffic stop, the United
States defends the detention as a permissible Terry stop supported by a finding of reasonable
suspicion. See United States’s Mem. at 8. “The Fourth Amendment prohibits ‘unreasonable
searches and seizures’ by law enforcement officials, and this protection extends to a brief
investigatory stop of persons or vehicles, whether or not an arrest follows.” United States v.
Bailey, 622 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273
(2002)). However, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), “‘an officer may briefly detain
19
a citizen if he has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’” Id.
(citation omitted). As the Circuit explained in Bailey:
A Terry stop requires only a “minimal level of objective justification.” . . . An
officer may initiate a Terry stop based not on certainty but on the need “to ‘check
out’ a reasonable suspicion.” Moreover, whether reasonable suspicion exists
depends on the totality of circumstances as “‘viewed through the eyes of a
reasonable and cautious police officer on the scene, guided by his experience and
training.’”
Id. (internal citations omitted). “[O]fficers’ actual motives do not bear on [the] objective
assessment of reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Brown, 334 F.3d 1161, 1166 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)).
The Supreme Court has observed that “‘most traffic stops . . . resemble, in duration and
atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry.’” Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323,
330 (2009) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 n.29 (1984)); see also United
States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498, 506 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Because a traffic stop is more
analogous to an investigative detention than a custodial arrest, we treat a traffic stop, whether
based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion, under the standard set forth in Terry.”); United
States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484, 488 n.4 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting that “traffic stops are governed
by Terry” under Sixth Circuit precedent, although the question has never been squarely
addressed by the Supreme Court). Terry sets forth a two-prong inquiry for determining whether
a stop is unreasonable: “[1] whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and [2]
whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference
in the first place.” 392 U.S. at 20. Applying that inquiry here, the Court will first examine
whether the Capitol Police had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of Olaniyi, after which it
will analyze whether the officers exceeded the permissible bounds of a Terry stop.
20
1. The Initial Stop
The United States maintains that Sergeant Gissubel had reasonable suspicion to pull over
Olaniyi because his van’s license plate was obscured by dirt and grime in violation of the
District’s traffic laws. See United States’s Mem. at 9-10. “As a general matter, the decision to
stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic
violation has occurred.” Whren, 517 U.S. at 810; see also United States v. Mitchell, 951 F.2d
1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“The Fourth Amendment does not bar the police from stopping and
questioning motorists when they witness or suspect a violation of traffic laws, even if the offense
is a minor one.”). While not contesting this legal principle, Olaniyi disputes that “his license
plate was partially obscured.” Pl.’s United States Facts ¶ 4. But this bare assertion is refuted by
the record evidence, including Olaniyi’s own deposition testimony. See United States’s Mem.,
Ex. 1 (Olaniyi Dep.) at 88:20-89:1 (“Q I see at one point on the side of the van there is some dirt
or grime or salt that’s sort of caked on [the van]. Do you see that? A Yes. It’s from driving
through the snow. Q Was that the same kind of stuff that was on the license plate? A Probably,
yes, sir. (emphasis added)); id., Ex. 3 (Deposition of Joseph M. DePalma) at 63:17-18 (“You
could barely read the license plate [on Olaniyi’s van]. There was a lot of road grime, road
salt.”); id., Ex. 4 (Deposition of Jessica Baboulis (“Baboulis Dep.”)) at 24:5-7 (“I remember not
being able to read the [van’s] license plate. It was covered in like a salt-dirt mix and I was
unable to read it.”); id., Ex. 7 (Video of January 20, 2004 Traffic Stop) (showing Olaniyi wiping
his license plate with a rag after Detective DePalma stated that it was dirty). Thus, even viewing
the record in the light most favorable to Olaniyi, as the Court must, the undisputed facts
demonstrate that his van’s license plate was obscured by debris at the time of the January 2004
traffic stop.
21
This fact is not insignificant. The District’s traffic regulations provide that
“[i]dentification tags shall be maintained free from foreign materials and in a clearly legible
condition,” D.C. Mun. Regs. Tit. 18, § 422.5, and that “[n]o person shall operate a vehicle where
the identification tag’s identifying numbers or letters are covered with glass, plastic, or any other
type of material or substance,” id. § 422.8. And “[a] person operating a vehicle in violation of §
422.8 shall be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($ 500).” Id. § 422.9. Olaniyi was
therefore in violation of the District’s traffic laws when he operated a vehicle with an obscured
license plate. Consequently, Sergeant Gissubel’s initial stop of Olaniyi was permissible because
she not only had reasonable suspicion, but “probable cause to believe that a traffic violation
ha[d] occurred.” Whren, 517 U.S. at 810. At the very least, the undisputed facts reveal that
Sergeant Gissubel had a reasonable, good faith belief that Olaniyi’s license plate was illegible,
see United States’s Mem., Ex. 4 (Baboulis Dep.) at 24:5-7, thus precluding liability for false
arrest under District of Columbia common law, see Weishapl, 771 A.2d at 1021.
Resisting this conclusion, Olaniyi contends that the Capitol Police officers’ conduct
following the initial stop, including questioning his presence in the District and ordering his car
searched, indicates that the Capitol’s Police’s “interest in [him] was not limited to his allegedly
obscured license plate.” Pl.’s United States Opp’n at 6. Rather, Olaniyi claims that the obscured
license plate is a mere “pretextual, post hoc justification” for the January 2004 traffic stop. Id.
But this argument ignores the settled principle that “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in
ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Whren, 517 U.S. at 813. Indeed,
whether the stop was a “mere pretext for a search” is irrelevant, for “a court must look to
objective circumstances in determining the legitimacy of police conduct under the Fourth
Amendment, rather than an officer’s state of mind.” Mitchell, 951 F.2d at 1295. Because the
22
objective circumstances here (namely, the van’s obscured license plate) justified the traffic stop
of Olaniyi, his initial seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Detention of Olaniyi Following the Initial Stop
Olaniyi challenges several aspects of his detention following the initial stop. According
to Olaniyi, “the evidentiary record suggests that [he] was targeted for . . . harassment and
investigation because of matters wholly unrelated to any alleged traffic or parking violation.”
Pl.’s United States Opp’n at 8. He adds that “[t]here are factual disputes between the parties as
to, among other things, the length of time of [his] detention, the scope of the canine search, and
the ability of Olaniyi and his family to freely leave police custody during this time.” Id. at 7.
Many of Olaniyi’s contentions must be dispensed with at the outset. First, any challenge
to the search of his van is not properly before the Court, given that the only remaining claim he
has against the United States is a tort claim for false arrest. See United States Compl. ¶¶ 46-49.
Since the gist of a false arrest claim is an “unlawful detention,” Enders, 4 A.3d at 461 (emphasis
added), the Court does not discern how the Capitol Police’s allegedly unlawful search of
Olaniyi’s van could form the predicate for such a claim. Second, contrary to Olaniyi’s assertion,
the factual question of whether Olaniyi was free to leave the location of the stop during the
period of his detention is not material. The relevant question is whether, assuming Olaniyi was
not free to leave, the Capitol Police were justified in detaining him under the Fourth
Amendment. Third, although Olaniyi asserts in his opposition brief that there is a factual dispute
concerning the length of his detention, see Pl.’s United States Opp’n at 7, he concedes in his
counterstatement of material facts that “[t]he total duration of the incident was approximately 18
minutes,” United States’s Facts ¶ 23; Pl.’s Response to United States’s Facts ¶ 23. He also
makes a similar concession earlier in his opposition brief. See Pl.’s United States Opp’n at 4
23
(“After approximately eighteen to twenty minutes of detention, Sergeant Gissubel returned
Olaniyi’s driver’s license and Olaniyi and his family were then able to depart the scene.”
(emphasis added)).
With these clarifications, the Court will examine whether the Capitol Police officers’
detention of Olaniyi was permissible in its scope and duration, recognizing that “‘a search [or
seizure] which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its
intolerable intensity and scope.”” United States v. Vinton, 594 F.3d 14, 23-24 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 18). It is undisputed that the Capitol Police detained Olaniyi for
roughly 18 minutes while they conducted a background check to determine whether he had a
valid license and any outstanding warrants in his name. See United States’s Facts ¶¶ 19, 22-23;
Pl.’s Response to United States’s Facts ¶¶ 19, 22-23. Upon validly stopping Olaniyi for a traffic
infraction, the officers plainly could detain him for a brief period to perform such a background
check. See Mitchell, 951 F.2d at 1295 (“‘Even a relatively minor offense that would not of itself
lead to an arrest can provide a basis for a stop for questioning and inspection of the driver’s
permit and registration.’” (citation omitted)).
Olaniyi nonetheless maintains that the Capitol Police “unlawfully extended” the detention
when they interrogated Olaniyi about matters unrelated to the alleged traffic violation, including
his presence in the District and the custody of his children. Pl.’s United States Opp’n at 8. Yet,
the Supreme Court has made clear that “[an] officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the
justification for the traffic stop . . . do not convert the encounter into something other than a
lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”
Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333 (citing Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 100-01 (2005)). In Muehler, the
Supreme Court held that an officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by questioning a
24
lawfully-detained suspect about her immigration status, even though the detainee was not
suspected of violating any immigration laws. 544 U.S. at 101. The Court reasoned:
[The court of appeals’ holding], it appears, was premised on the assumption that
the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to
question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning
constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We
have “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.”
“[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they
may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s
identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” As the Court of
Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there
was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence,
the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and
place of birth, or immigration status.
Id. at 100-101 (internal citations omitted). The Supreme Court later applied the reasoning from
Muehler in the context of a traffic stop in Johnson, finding no Fourth Amendment violation
where an officer questioned a car passenger about his possible gang affiliation, while a second
officer checked the driver’s license, registration, and insurance information. Johnson, 555 U.S.
at 328, 333. Although the cases arose in slightly different contexts, the common element of both
Muehler and Johnson was that the officers’ off-topic questioning did not substantially extend the
duration of the seizures. See id. at 333; Muehler, 544 U.S. at 100-01.
Here, as in Muehler and Johnson, there is no indication that Detective DePalma’s
questions regarding Olaniyi’s presence in the District and the custody of his children
“measurably extend[ed] the duration of the stop.” Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333. The record instead
reveals that Detective DePalma asked Olaniyi these off-topic questions while Sergeant Gissubel
conducted the license check, thus indicating that the stop was not prolonged at all by his
questions. See United States’s Mem., Ex. 4 (Baboulis Dep.) at 38:10-39:8. This version of
events is confirmed by the video of the January 2004 traffic stop, which depicts Olaniyi and
Patel conversing with Detective DePalma for several minutes while Sergeant Gissubel confers
25
with other officers, after which Sergeant Gissubel approaches Olaniyi and returns his license.
See United States’s Mem., Ex. 7 (Video of January 20, 2004 Traffic Stop). Detective DePalma
is even heard on the video as stating that Olaniyi and his family would be released once his
license check was complete, which they were. Id. Olaniyi has highlighted no evidence to the
contrary. Because “Muehler and Johnson make clear . . . that an officer may ask unrelated
questions to his heart’s content, provided he does so during the supposedly dead time while he or
another officer is completing a task related to the traffic violation,” Everett, 601 F.3d at 492
(collecting cases), Detective DePalma’s off-topic questioning did not effect an unlawful
detention of Olaniyi.
Nor has Olaniyi otherwise shown that the traffic stop was extended “beyond a reasonable
duration.” Vinton, 594 F.3d at 23. “To ‘assess[] whether a detention is too long in duration to
be justified as an investigative stop, [courts] . . . examine whether the police diligently pursued a
means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985)). Sergeant Gissubel took
approximately 18 minutes to check Olaniyi’s license and, upon completing the check, she
returned the license to Olaniyi and sent him on his way. See Pl.’s United States Opp’n at 4.
Olaniyi has not shown that Sergeant Gissubel failed to act diligently in checking his license, nor
does the record support such a conclusion.
In short, Olaniyi has failed to produce any evidence from which a reasonable jury could
find that the Capitol Police unlawfully detained him during the January 2004 traffic stop.
Accordingly, the United States is entitled to summary judgment on Olaniyi’s false arrest claim.
26
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2012. 7
REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge
7
The Court will contemporaneously issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
27