Court Opinion

ID: 9411792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 21:03:49.263549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.328389
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MAURICE LOCKETT,

              Plaintiff,

      v.                                             Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02935 (CJN)

METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

              Defendants.

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       Plaintiff Maurice Lockett alleges that an officer assaulted him while he was detained at the

District of Columbia’s Seventh District police station in March 2021. Compl. ¶¶ 10–11. After the

alleged assault, Lockett was himself charged with assaulting a police officer, but that charge was

later dismissed through an entry of nolle prosequi. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15, 55. Lockett now brings five

claims against the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) and the D.C. Central Detention

Facility (“CDF”): (1) excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) assault, (3) gross negligence,

(4) negligent supervision, and (5) malicious prosecution. MPD and CDF move to dismiss for

failure to state a claim. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 1, ECF No. 8. For the following reasons, the

Court will grant the motion.

       As a preliminary matter, MPD and CDF are non sui juris, meaning they cannot be sued

separate from the District of Columbia. See, e.g., Allen-Brown v. District of Columbia, 54 F. Supp.

3d 35, 40 (D.D.C. 2014). When a plaintiff brings a claim against a non sui juris entity, the court

may substitute the proper defendant, Sampson v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 20 F. Supp. 3d 282, 285

(D.D.C. 2014), but the court may decline to do so if substitution would be futile, Carter-El v. D.C.

                                                 1
Dep’t of Corr., 893 F. Supp. 2d 243, 247–48 (D.D.C. 2012). Substituting the District as the

defendant here would be futile because Lockett fails to state a claim for relief. For simplicity,

however, the Court will refer to the District as the defendant. 1

       To begin, Lockett fails to state a claim under § 1983 because he does not allege facts

sufficient to support municipal liability. Courts treat the District of Columbia as a municipality

for purposes of § 1983 claims. See, e.g., Harvey v. District of Columbia, 798 F.3d 1042, 1049

(D.C. Cir. 2015); Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Grissom v.

District of Columbia, 853 F. Supp. 2d 118, 122 (D.D.C. 2012). “[A] municipality can be found

liable under § 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the constitutional violation at issue.”

City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Municipal liability thus requires a

“direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional

deprivation.” Id.; see also Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306–07 (D.C. Cir. 2003)

(recognizing that a municipality’s “deliberate indifference” to the risk of constitutional violations

can qualify as a policy or custom under § 1983).

       Lockett fails to allege that the District had a policy or custom that caused the purported

constitutional violation. Instead, he rests on the claim that his constitutional rights were violated

by a metropolitan police officer. But the doctrine of respondeat superior, on which Lockett

1
  Lockett claims that he also named former Chief of Police Robert Contee and CDF Warden
Kathleen Landerkin as defendants in their official capacities. Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss
at 2, ECF No. 10-1. But while Lockett identified those individuals in the first sentence of his
Complaint, he did not list them as parties or name them as defendants in either the caption or the
civil cover sheet. Compl. at 1. In any event, this issue has no bearing on the legal analysis. See
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985) (noting that “an official-capacity suit is, in all
respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity”).

                                                  2
appears to rely, cannot support municipal liability under § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of

City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 2

        Next, Lockett’s assault claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. 3 D.C. Code

§ 12-301(4). Lockett alleges that an officer assaulted him in March 2021, but he filed this suit in

September 2022. Because Lockett does not respond to the District’s argument that his assault

claim is time-barred, he concedes the issue. Hopkins v. Women’s Div., Gen. Bd. of Glob.

Ministries, 284 F. Supp. 2d 15, 25 (D.D.C. 2003).

        Lockett appears to bring two gross negligence claims—one “against MPD” and the other

“against CDF.” As for the claim “against MPD” (which is really against the District), Lockett fails

to allege a theory of negligence independent of his assault claim. He simply alleges that the officer

violated a legal duty by using excessive force and that the officer’s “negligence” can be imputed

to the District under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Compl. ¶¶ 28–38. But a negligence

claim cannot rest solely on the commission of an intentional tort. District of Columbia v. Chinn,

839 A.2d 701, 711 (D.C. 2003) (observing that “negligence must be distinctly pled and based upon

at least one factual scenario that presents an aspect of negligence apart from the use of excessive

force itself and violative of a distinct standard of care”); see also id. (“It is tautological to speak of

2
  Elsewhere in the Complaint, Lockett alleges that the warden “failed to properly supervise the
Metropolitan Police Officer within the detention facility who later assault [him].” Compl. ¶ 46.
This bare allegation is insufficient to support municipal liability under a deliberate indifference or
failure-to-supervise theory. McComb v. Ross, 202 F. Supp. 3d 11, 17 (D.D.C. 2016) (noting that
deliberate indifference and failure-to-supervise theories are “stringent standard[s]” that generally
require plaintiffs to allege a pattern of overlooked constitutional violations (quotations omitted)).
3
  The Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Lockett’s common law claims because they
arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim and judicial economy and
convenience support retaining jurisdiction. Armbruster v. Frost, 962 F. Supp. 2d 105, 116 (D.D.C.
2013) (retaining supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims after dismissing federal
claim).
                                                    3
the applicable standard of care as being the duty not to use excessive force.”); Spicer v. District of

Columbia, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4–5 (D.D.C. 2013) (same).

       As for the gross negligence claim “against CDF” (which is also really against the District),

Lockett makes no attempt to allege “such an extreme deviation from the ordinary standard of care

as to support a finding of wanton, willful and reckless disregard or conscious indifference for the

rights and safety of others.” Tillery v. District of Columbia, 227 A.3d 147, 151 (D.C. 2020). He

instead seems to rest on a theory of negligent supervision—that the District “had a duty to keep

him safe and breached that duty when . . . staff failed to properly supervise” the officer. Compl.

¶¶ 45–46. But this theory fails because Lockett again alleges insufficient facts to support a finding

of negligent supervision. Liability for negligent supervision turns on a showing that an “employer

knew or should have known its employee behaved in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent

manner, and that the employer, armed with that actual or constructive knowledge, failed to

adequately supervise the employee.” Godfrey v. Iverson, 559 F.3d 569, 571 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

(quoting Brown v. Argenbright Sec., Inc., 782 A.2d 752, 760 (D.C. 2001)). But Lockett does not

allege that the District had “actual or constructive knowledge” that the officer “behaved in a

dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner” before the incident at issue. And without notice of

the officer’s allegedly dangerous behavior, the District cannot be held liable for failure to

supervise. Spiller v. District of Columbia, 302 F. Supp. 3d 240, 255 (D.D.C. 2018).

       Finally, Lockett’s common law malicious prosecution claim fails because he does not

allege that his charge was favorably dismissed. 4 To succeed on a claim of malicious prosecution

4
 The Complaint does not specify whether Lockett’s malicious prosecution claim is brought under
D.C. law or § 1983, which are governed by different standards. See Thompson v. Clark, 142 S.
Ct. 1332, 1341 (2022) (holding that “a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious
prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some
affirmative indication of innocence”). To the extent Lockett relies on § 1983, however, he still
                                                  4
under D.C. law, a plaintiff must allege four elements, including “termination of the proceeding in

favor of the accused.” DeWitt v. District of Columbia, 43 A.3d 291, 296 (D.C. 2012). A favorable

termination “must reflect on the merits of the underlying action.” Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241,

1246 (D.C. 1986). “Merely alleging that criminal charges were dismissed is . . . insufficient to

plead that the underlying case was favorably terminated.” Kenley v. District of Columbia, 83 F.

Supp. 3d 20, 42 (D.D.C. 2015). Here, the assault charge against Lockett was dismissed through

an entry of nolle prosequi. Compl. ¶ 55; Gov’t’s Not. of Nolle Prosequi, Ex.1, ECF No. 8-1. Such

a dismissal does not necessarily reflect on the merits of the action, and Lockett pleads no other

facts to suggest that the dismissal constituted a favorable termination. Kenley, 83 F. Supp. 3d at

42 (dismissing malicious prosecution claim because the underlying dismissal was nolle prosequi

and the plaintiff failed to plead that the case was favorably terminated).

       For all these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.

8, is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

       This is a final appealable order.

       The Clerk is directed to terminate the case.

DATE: July 27, 2023                                           _____________________
                                                              CARL J. NICHOLS
                                                              United States District Judge

fails to state a claim for municipal liability for the reasons given above. See Dant v. District of
Columbia, 829 F.2d 69, 77 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (affirming dismissal of malicious prosecution claim
under § 1983 for failure to allege an official policy or custom).

                                                 5