Opinion ID: 489887
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Allegations Against Appellee

Text: Cullinane 43 As we have stated, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) should be denied if it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff might be able to prove some set of facts which would provide a basis for liability. 134 Evaluated according to this liberal standard, we think the District Court's dismissal of Cullinane from the lawsuit was premature. Haynesworth's complaint alleged that Cullinane was charged with the responsibility of supervising the wrongdoing officers; 135 that a practice of retaliatory prosecution had unfolded in the District of Columbia; 136 that Cullinane failed to supervise or instruct his officers in order to guard against further outbreaks of retaliation; 137 and that Haynesworth's injuries resulted from that failure. 138 Additionally, we may infer 139 that the police participated in the prior acts of retaliatory prosecution, and that the police chief was or should have been aware thereof. Cast in the light most favorable to Haynesworth, these facts, if proven, could sustain a finding of liability on the part of Cullinane. 44 It will be for Haynesworth to substantiate his claim that there was a past practice of retaliatory prosecutions, and that the police participated therein with the knowledge--or at least the indifference--of Cullinane. Haynesworth should be afforded some opportunity to verify these claims through discovery since the operative information is largely in the hands of adverse parties. 140 Correspondingly, Cullinane should be given a chance to counter Haynesworth's allegations with factual information, and to develop the affirmative defense of good faith immunity. 141 We do not, of course, assess Haynesworth's chance of prevailing at trial, but believe that his complaint sets forth enough to withstand a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) and to enable him to proceed with discovery. 142