Fouch v. District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________
)
GREGORY FOUCH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:12-CV-1291 (EGS)
v. )
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court are defendants’ Motion to
Partially Dismiss the Amended Complaint and Motion to Remand.
The Defendants argue, inter alia, that plaintiff’s two federal
law claims should be dismissed, and that any remaining claims
should be remanded to the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. Upon consideration of the motions, the responses and
replies thereto, the relevant case law, and the entire record,
the Motion to Partially Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part. Specifically, the Court will grant
the motion insofar as it requests dismissal of plaintiff’s two
federal law claims (Counts II and VI of the Amended Complaint).
The Motion to Remand is GRANTED, and the Court will REMAND the
remaining claims to the Superior Court.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Gregory Fouch is a resident of Maryland. Am.
Compl., [Dkt. #17], ¶ 3. In December 2011, Mr. Fouch was
charged with one misdemeanor count of threats in the District of
Columbia. Id. ¶ 7. On January 5, 2012, plaintiff went to the
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”)’s Central Booking
Division to voluntarily turn himself in to be processed.
Id. ¶ 10. At the station, Mr. Fouch was advised that he would
be taken to an alternative location for processing. Id. ¶ 11.
Defendant Albert Scott, an MPD officer, handcuffed plaintiff
behind his back and placed him in a police carrier van, which
did not contain seatbelts or restraints. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. When
defendant Scott began driving the van, another police vehicle,
driven by Officer Robert Sharpe, backed out of a parking space
directly in front of the van driven by defendant Scott. Id.
¶¶ 18-19. Defendant Scott stopped the van abruptly to avoid the
other vehicle and Mr. Fouch was thrown off the seat of the van.
Id. ¶¶ 20-21. Defendant Scott exited the van, picked up Mr.
Fouch, and sat him back on the seat. Id. ¶ 22. At that time,
defendant Scott noticed blood coming from plaintiff’s ear. Id.
Plaintiff was then taken to Howard University Hospital. Id.
¶ 23. Mr. Fouch suffered severe injuries from the incident,
including fractured cervical discs, a spinal cord injury, and
partial paralysis. Id. ¶ 25.
2
Plaintiff initially brought this action in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia on June 21, 2012, alleging
various claims arising under state and federal law against the
District of Columbia, Officer Scott, and Officer Sharpe.
Compl., [Dkt. #1-1]. On August 3, 2012, the District removed
this matter to federal court on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction. Notice of Removal of Action, [Dkt. #1].
Defendants subsequently moved to partially dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint, Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss I, [Dkt. #8], and on June 19,
2013, a motions hearing was held before this Court.
On July 3, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
in which he dismissed Officer Sharpe as a defendant in this
matter. Am. Compl., [Dkt. #17]. Pending before the Court is
defendants’ motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff’s amended
complaint, including plaintiff’s federal law claims, for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defs.’ Mot. to
Dismiss II, [Dkt. #18]. The defendants have also filed a Motion
to Remand, arguing that in the event plaintiff’s federal law
claims are dismissed, the case be remanded to the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia. See Defs.’ Supplemental Mot. to
Remand, [Dkt. #14]; Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Supplemental Mot. to
Remand, [Dkt. #16]. The motions are ripe for review.
3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Browning
v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A complaint
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
While detailed factual allegations are not necessary, plaintiff
must plead enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Id.When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court may
consider “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached
as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint, and
matters about which the Court may take judicial notice.”
Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 (D.D.C. 2002).
The Court must construe the complaint liberally in plaintiff’s
favor and grant plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable
inferences deriving from the complaint. Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns
Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994). However, the Court
must not accept plaintiff’s inferences that are “unsupported by
the facts set out in the complaint.” Id. “[O]nly a complaint
4
that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Count II: Substantive Due Process Violation Claim
In Count II, plaintiff alleges that the District and
Officer Scott violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth
Amendment1 “to be free from custody and confinement which create
an unreasonable danger to his health and safety.” Am. Compl.,
[Dkt. #17], ¶ 37. Plaintiff alleges that by handcuffing him
behind his back and then transporting him in a vehicle without
seatbelts or harnesses when other vehicles with seatbelts were
available, Officer Scott “acted intentionally and/or with
deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard of,
Plaintiff’s civil rights and his health and safety.” Id. ¶ 40.
Moreover, plaintiff seeks to hold the District responsible for
Officer Scott’s acts under the respondeat superior theory. Id.
¶ 44. However, as defendants point out in their partial motion
to dismiss, a municipality cannot be held liable, under the
doctrine of respondeat superior, for constitutional violations
1
Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated his Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Am. Compl., [Dkt. #17], ¶ 42. “The
Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable to the District of
Columbia. However, concepts of equal protection are inherent in
the due process of law guaranteed to citizens of the District by
the Fifth Amendment.” Bulluck v. Washington, 468 F.2d 1096,
1100 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (citing Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S.
497, 499 (1953)).
5
committed by its employees. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436
U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Triplett v. Dist. of Columbia, 108 F.3d
1450, 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Because plaintiff’s claim against
the District fails as a matter of law, the Court will DISMISS
Count II of plaintiff’s amended complaint against the District.
The standard for plaintiff’s substantive due process
violation claim, because he was in custody of the District when
the events in the amended complaint occurred, is whether the
state actor was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety
and well-being. See Butera v. Dist. of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637,
651-52 (D.C. Cir. 2001). To state a claim for deliberate
indifference, plaintiff must allege: (1) that the challenged
condition of confinement posed “a substantial risk of serious
harm,” and (2) that defendant Scott’s state of mind was one of
“deliberate indifference” to plaintiff’s health or safety.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1995); see also Cottrell
v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1996).
The use of the term deliberate “arguably requires . . . an
act (or omission) of indifference to a serious risk that is
voluntary, not accidental.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 840. Thus,
there can be no liability “unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to [an arrestee’s] health and
safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
6
exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
There is no liability for “an official’s failure to alleviate a
significant risk that he should have perceived but did not.”
Id. at 838. Moreover, “[i]nadvertent errors . . . [or] even
negligence in the performance of official duties, do not warrant
redress” under the substantive due process clause. Silverman v.
Barry, 845 F.2d 1072, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Cnty. of
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849 (1998) (“the Constitution
does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials;
liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically
beneath the threshold of constitutional due process.”)
Plaintiff’s main argument is that Officer Scott’s decision
to transport him in a vehicle not equipped with seatbelts or
safety restraints constituted deliberate indifference to
plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiff alleges that by being handcuffed behind his back and
placed in a vehicle without seatbelts, he was in a “very
vulnerable situation and could not protect himself in the event
of a foreseeable automobile accident.” Am. Compl., [Dkt. #17],
¶ 13. Plaintiff further alleges that Officer Scott deliberately
chose to handcuff plaintiff behind his back rather than in the
front, and deliberately chose to place plaintiff in a vehicle
without seatbelts when other vehicles with seatbelts were
available. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. These allegations, however, do not
7
support the claim that Officer Scott acted with deliberate
indifference to the threat of injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff
does not allege facts that plausibly support the inference that
Officer Scott knew or should have known there was a substantial
risk of serious harm to plaintiff when placing plaintiff in a
police vehicle for transportation to be processed, nor does
plaintiff allege that Officer Scott deliberately disregarded
such a risk.
The D.C. Circuit has not yet addressed whether transporting
handcuffed arrestees in vehicles that are not equipped with
seatbelts or restraints may rise to the level of a substantive
due process violation. However, at least three other circuits
have found that transporting handcuffed persons in police
custody in a vehicle without seatbelts does not constitute
deliberate indifference. Jabbar v. Fischer, 683 F.3d 54, 58 (2d
Cir. 2012) (concluding that allegation of “absence of seatbelts
on inmate bus transport,” without more, does not constitute
deliberate indifference in violation of Eighth or Fourteenth
Amendment); Wright v. Shawnee Twp., No. 98-3558, 2000 U.S. App.
LEXIS 1395, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000) (finding no
constitutional violation when police officer failed to observe
traffic laws while transporting handcuffed arrestee and police
car door opened unexpectedly, causing arrestee to fall out and
sustain injuries); Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equip. Co., 183
8
F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding no constitutional
violation when handcuffed arrestee had trouble maintaining
balance while being transported in vehicle without seatbelts and
was thrown forward with enough force to render him
quadriplegic).2
In his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss,
plaintiff argues that the Court should instead look to two cases
from the Fifth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit, in which the
courts concluded that the allegations of failure to provide
seatbelts and reckless driving were sufficient to proceed to the
next stage in the litigation. Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to
Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”), [Dkt. #21], 14, 17. As an initial
matter, it is worth noting that both cases involve Eighth
Amendment claims brought by prison inmates. See Rogers v.
Boatright, 709 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2013); Brown v. Fornter, 518
F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2008). More important, plaintiffs in both
2
Defendants cite two additional cases from the Tenth Circuit and
the Eleventh Circuit to support the argument that failure to
provide seatbelts does not constitute deliberate indifference.
Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss II, [Dkt. #18], at 7-8, citing Smith v.
Sec’y for Dep’t of Corrs., 252 F. App’x 301 (11th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam); Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 F. App’x 637 (10th
Cir. 2004). These cases involve Eighth Amendment claims brought
by prison inmates, as opposed to substantive due process claims
brought by handcuffed arrestees. However, the courts rely on
the same test: whether plaintiff alleged the prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious
harm. Smith, 252 F. App’x at 303-304; Dexter, 92 F. App’x at
639-40. Accordingly, these cases provide further support for
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Amended Complaint.
9
cases alleged more than just the official’s failure to provide
seatbelts. For example, the plaintiff in Rogers alleged that
the official recklessly operated the vehicle, by “darting in and
out of traffic at high speeds” and at one point having to “brake
hard to avoid hitting a vehicle in front of him.” Rogers, 709
F.3d at 406. Additionally, the Rogers plaintiff alleged that
the official had knowledge of the potential danger to plaintiff,
which he alleged could be inferred from the official’s prior
statement that he knew incidents involving injuries to
handcuffed inmates while being transported in vehicles without
seatbelts “happen[] all the time, [it] isn’t a big deal.” Id.
at 409. The Fifth Circuit concluded that based on these
allegations, plaintiff’s complaint should not have been
dismissed sua sponte by the district court. Id. Similarly, the
plaintiff in Brown alleged that seatbelts were available in the
vehicle he was being transported in, but claimed that the
officers refused his request to fasten the seatbelt and taunted
him in response. Brown, 518 F.3d at 557. He also alleged that
the officer “traveled in excess of the speed limit (55 miles per
hour), going up to 75 miles per hour,” and ignored inmates’
repeated requests to slow down before the vehicle collided into
another vehicle, causing plaintiff’s injuries. Id. Moreover,
the police investigation of the collision listed the officer’s
inattentive driving as the cause of the accident. Id. The
10
Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court should not have
dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint at the summary judgment
stage because there was sufficient evidence that one of the
defendant officer’s actions may have violated the plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment right. Id. at 560.
Plaintiff argues that because of his additional allegations
that Officer Scott “acted recklessly, negligently, grossly
negligent, and with wanton and conscious of the rights of
Plaintiff,” the present case is more analogous to Rogers and
Brown. Pl.’s Opp’n, [Dkt. #21], at 17. However, in contrast to
the Rogers and Brown cases in which there were additional
factual allegations to support the claim of the officers’
recklessness, the allegations contained in plaintiff’s amended
complaint are legal conclusions, which the Court need not accept
as true unless accompanied by sufficient factual matter to state
a plausible claim to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.3 Because
3
In his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff
argues that defendants’ motion turns on questions of fact and,
therefore, should be converted into a motion for summary
judgment and denied as premature, so that discovery may go
forward. Pl.’s Opp’n [Dkt. # 21] at 4-6. Specifically,
plaintiff claims that there is a factual dispute over whether
Officer Scott acted with an intent to punish or injure
plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that he has alleged as much, and
that accordingly, his Amended Complaint must survive the motion
to dismiss. While plaintiff alleges that Officer Scott “acted
intentionally and/or with deliberate indifference to . . .
Plaintiff’s civil rights and his health and safety,” Am. Compl.
¶ 40, this does not create a factual dispute. Rather, these are
legal conclusions, which the Court need not accept as true
11
plaintiff fails to allege facts to support his legal conclusion
that Officer Scott acted recklessly or with deliberate
indifference, the Court finds that the present case is
distinguishable from Rogers and Brown.
While sympathizing with Mr. Fouch and the unfortunate
circumstances leading to his injuries, these facts do not rise
to the level of a constitutional deprivation. Construing the
amended complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and
granting plaintiff all reasonable inferences from those facts,
the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege a claim for
a Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation.
Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS Count II of the amended
complaint against the District and Officer Scott for failure to
state a claim.
B. Count VI: § 1983 Claim Against the District
In Count VI, plaintiff claims that the District’s negligent
hiring, training, and supervision of Officer Scott violated his
constitutional rights. Am. Compl., [Dkt. #17], ¶¶ 67-72.
Plaintiff seeks to hold the District liable for money damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the injuries and loss of wages he
unless accompanied by sufficient factual matter to state a
plausible claim to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”)
Accordingly, the Court declines to convert defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
12
suffered as a result of the incident on January 5, 2012. Id.
¶ 74.
To state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must plead facts
sufficient to allege (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Additionally, because
municipalities are liable for their agents’ constitutional torts
only if the agents acted pursuant to municipal policy or custom,
Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, plaintiff must also allege “causation –
specifically, a § 1983 plaintiff must plead facts to support an
inference that some official government policy or custom caused
an employee to violate another’s constitutional rights.” Blue
v. Dist. of Columbia, 850 F. Supp. 2d 16, 24 (D.D.C. 2012)
(citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 692) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to plead a
predicate constitutional violation necessary for a § 1983 claim.
As already discussed in connection with Count II of plaintiff’s
amended complaint, plaintiff has failed to state a claim that
his substantive due process rights were violated as a result of
the injuries he sustained while being transported in a police
vehicle containing no seatbelts or restraints. “A claim of
inadequate training, supervision and policies under 1983 cannot
13
be made out against a supervisory authority absent a finding of
a constitutional violation by the person supervised.” Webber v.
Mefford, 43 F.3d 1340, 1344-45 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing, e.g.,
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992);
City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)).
Moreover, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to state a
claim that the District was deliberately indifferent to the risk
of constitutional violations. Under the “deliberate
indifference” theory of municipal liability, which plaintiff
relies on to support his § 1983 claim against the District, see
Am. Compl., [Dkt #17], ¶¶ 70-72, plaintiff must establish that
the city adopted a “policy of inaction” when “faced with actual
or constructive knowledge that its agents will probably violate
constitutional rights.” Warren v. Dist. of Columbia, 353 F.3d
36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because plaintiff has not pled that
the District’s agents violated his constitutional rights or are
likely to violate anyone else’s, plaintiff’s emphasis on the
“deliberate indifference” theory cannot save his § 1983 claim.
Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS Count VI of the amended
complaint against the District for failure to state a claim.
C. Supplemental Jurisdiction
Upon dismissal of Counts II and VI, the Amended Complaint
contains no further federal cause of action over which this
14
Court has original subject matter jurisdiction.4 “Whether to
retain jurisdiction over pendant . . . claims after dismissal of
the federal claims is a matter left to the sound discretion of
the district court.” Ali Shafi v. Palestinian Auth., 642 F.3d
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
The factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) – judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity - guide the Court’s
discretion in determining whether to dismiss state law claims.
Shekoyan v. Sibley Int’l, 409 F.3d 414, 424 n.4 (D.C. Cir.
2005). In this case, the factors point toward declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Mr. Fouch originally filed
this case in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia;
once it was removed to this Court the defendants immediately
moved to dismiss. This Court has not invested significant time
or resources on the state law claims, and considerations of
comity and efficiency weigh in favor of allowing District of
Columbia courts to make determinations about District of
Columbia law. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction and remand the remaining state law
claims to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.
4
Diversity jurisdiction is not available because one of the
defendants is the District of Columbia, which, like the fifty
states, is not subject to diversity jurisdiction. Long v. Dist.
of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 413-14 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
15
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Counts II and VI of plaintiff’s
amended complaint are DISMISSED. In the absence of a federal
claim against defendants, the Court, in its discretion, declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly,
defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED and this case is
REMANDED to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
January 8, 2014
16