Case: Robinson v. Farley

1:15-cv-00803 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: June 1, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 1, 2015, a young man with cerebral palsy and his caretaker filed this suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued Prince George's County, Maryland and the District of Columbia as well as their respective police departments under 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1231 (Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 29 U.S.C. § 701, and various state laws. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, asked the court for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and appropriate injunctive relief. Along with other Fourth Amendment violations, the plaintiffs claimed that the force used by the Prince George's County Police Department was excessive. The plaintiffs also claimed that the police departments had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act for not having training and protocols in place for arrests of individuals with disabilities.

The events that precipitated the lawsuits were alleged as follows. The plaintiff was waiting at a bus stop on his way to run errands. Members of the Prince George's County Police Department had made their way into the District of Columbia to search for car thieves. The officers noticed the plaintiffs sitting at the bus stop and gave him unfriendly looks. The officers claim this was because he matched the subject's description. Because the stares of the police officers made him uncomfortable, the plaintiff began to head back towards his house. The police then confronted the plaintiff. The officer asked for the plaintiff's identification and the plaintiff presented the officer with his disability identification card. The officer eventually followed the plaintiff into his apartment complex.

From there, the complaint alleges that neighbors and the plaintiff's caretaker got involved. The caretaker first entered the scene seeing the plaintiff sprawled on the steps, the much larger officer standing above him, TASER in hand. The plaintiff was able to get free of the officer and fled into his apartment. The officer drew his firearm, waving it at the neighbors who had congregated and proceeded to call for backup instead of attempting to deescalate the situation. All the while, the plaintiff's caretaker and neighbor tried to explain to the officer that the plaintiff was disabled, and was, in fact, not capable of driving a car, let alone stealing a car. Eventually there were 29 police vehicles parked on the plaintiffs' block. The officers, some from the Prince George's County Sheriff's Office, the Prince George's County Police Department, and the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department, entered the plaintiff's apartment without a warrant, with firearms drawn. When they found the plaintiff in his bathroom, they allegedly beat him. The plaintiff was marched outside in handcuffs, sent to the hospital-with heavy bruising, lacerations, and a TASER spike lodged in his back. The hospital remanded him to the Metropolitan Police Department, and he was detained overnight.

According to the complaint, no attempt was made to contact the plaintiff's family when the sole charge against him, misdemeanor assault of a police officer, was not prosecuted. The plaintiff's uncle found the plaintiff wandering, scared and confused, around the outside of the courthouse.

After the complaint was filed, the different parties each filed motions to dismiss. Prince George's County filed their motion on November 19, 2015 and the District of Columbia filed their motion to dismiss on December 1, 2015.

Two of the officers of the Prince George's County Police Department were served in September of 2015 but failed to respond to the claims. On January 13, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the officers, who, a day later, filed a joint answer in the hopes that it would be accepted. The court (Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson) allowed the answer, saying in a minute order on January 14, 2016, that though neither officer sought leave to file the late answer, the court had a preference for deciding cases on the merits instead of on technicalities. The officers, also on January 14, 2016, filed their own motion to dismiss.

On May 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which dropped the official-capacity charges against the officers. Therefore, the motion to dismiss filed by the two Prince George's County officers was denied as moot. In the same minute order that denied the motion to dismiss, Judge Jackson issued a stay on the obligation of individual defendants to respond to the second amended complaint.

The second amended complaint also added charges against a new defendant: the state of Maryland. Specifically, Maryland was charged with violating the ADA. On May 16, 2016, the state of Maryland filed a motion to dismiss, and the case against Maryland was voluntarily dismissed on May 27, 2016.

On June 20, 2016, the United States Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the case. In the statement, the DOJ asserted that arrest procedures were specifically considered during the drafting process of the ADA, and that the DOJ had in interest in the case not being dismissed.

On July 27, 2016, Judge Jackson denied Prince George's County and the District of Columbia's motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on the individual officer's obligations to respond to the second amended complaint, setting a due date in September. However, five days later on August 1, 2016, Prince George's County and its Police Officers filed a motion to bifurcate the case, hoping to separate the Monell claims from the individual claims. The defendants argued that the individual claims should be tried first, for convenience's sake. If the jury found that the plaintiff's rights had not been violated, then there could be no claim against the county or the district. Additionally, the defendants made the argument that even if the jury found against the individual officers, the monetary damages received would "obviate the need for a second trial." Finally, the defendants argued that the discovery information obtained and presented in arguing the custom of police brutality and disregard of the ADA that would be needed for the court or jury to find against Prince George's County would unfairly prejudice the jury or court against the individual officers.

On August 26, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition of the motion to bifurcate. They argued that the efficiency cited by the defendants was purely speculative and that staying discovery for the Monell claims until the possible second trial would be unfairly prejudicial against the plaintiffs. In the introduction, the plaintiffs implicitly asserted that in combination with the motions to dismiss, the bifurcation was simply a continuation of a pattern of attempts to prevent any discovery on the discriminatory practices of Prince George's County.

On September 14, 2016, Judge Jackson denied the motion for bifurcation without prejudice. Specifically, she stated that because the individual answers to the second amended complaint had not been filed, and because there was yet no discovery schedule set for the trial, the motion was premature. She stated that she would consider any motions for stays of discovery or bifurcation at a more appropriate time.

The officers answered the second amended complaint, and on October 7, 2016, the charged officers of the MPD filed a motion to dismiss. This time, the officers asserted that the charges against them were too vague to know whether or not they could claim qualified immunity.

On October 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. As compared to the first complaint, it dropped the original due process claims and the claim based on the DC Human Rights Act Violation. Meanwhile, it added unlawful entry claims and negligent infliction of emotional distress in addition to the original intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The third amended complaint also added a claim under section of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and added a section on the administrative notice the plaintiffs gave to both the District of Columbia and Prince George's County.

The court initially refused to rule on the defendant's qualified immunity claim because it found neither party had developed the argument sufficiently. After several months of supplemental briefing, the court held a motion hearing on the issue in April of 2017, and denied the motion to dismiss on September 1, 2017. 264 F. Supp. 3d 154. The court found that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim against the officers even though it did not allege exactly what actions each particular officer took.

The defendants filed a second motion to bifurcate and stay discovery on November 16, 2017, which the court granted in part and denied in part on January 16, 2018. Specifically, the court concluded that bifurcation of the Monell claims was appropriate for the purposes of trial, but that to avoid undue prejudice to the plaintiffs, the existing discovery schedule would proceed as to all claims. It went on to explain that after summary judgment, any surviving non-Monell claims would proceed to trial. After the initial trial, if there was reason to proceed on the Monell claims, a second trial addressing those would follow.

Since then, litigation has continued over various discovery disputes and the parties appear to have engaged in some settlement efforts. On September 24, 2018, the parties filed a joint consent to mediation by Magistrate Judge, and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson for mediation. While a settlement conference was initially scheduled for November of 2018, was rescheduled a number of times and was never actually held.

On April 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preservation order for Prince George County defendants regarding the preservation of evidence. A discovery hearing was held before Judge Meriweather on May 20, 2019. The same day, at the request of the court, the plaintiffs filed a notice of discovery. The plaintiffs requested production of documents.

On October 29, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case against the Prince George County defendants because the parties had reached a private settlement. The claims against the D.C. defendants had not been resolved and were still subject to ongoing litigation. Three days layer, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather for full case management.

The case was administratively stayed on March 11, 2020 by Judge Meriweather because of the pending settlement. On May 28, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal against all defendants because the parties had settled the matter privately. As of July 16, 2020, the court had not yet issued an order to dismiss the case with prejudice.

	Document
1:15-cv-00803	Docket [PACER]	May 28, 2020	May 28, 2020 Docket
138 1:15-cv-00803	Complaint	June 1, 2015	June 1, 2015 Complaint
38 1:15-cv-00803	Statement of Interest of the United States of America	June 20, 2016	June 20, 2016 Pleading / Motion / Brief
42 1:15-cv-00803	Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for Bifurcation and Stay of Discovery	Aug. 1, 2016	Aug. 1, 2016 Justification Memo
62 1:15-cv-00803	Third Amended Complaint	Oct. 13, 2016	Oct. 13, 2016 Complaint
81 1:15-cv-00803	Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss	Sept. 1, 2017	Sept. 1, 2017 Order/Opinion 264 F.Supp.3d 154

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against ALL DEFENDANTS with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4118332) filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL EUGENE ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons)(Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 06/01/2015) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Summons View on PACER 3 Summons View on PACER 4 Summons View on PACER 5 Summons View on PACER 6 Summons View on PACER 7 Summons View on PACER 8 Summons View on PACER 9 Summons View on PACER 10 Summons View on PACER 11 Summons View on PACER 12 Summons View on PACER	June 1, 2015	June 1, 2015 RECAP
	Case Assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (md)	June 1, 2015	June 1, 2015 PACER
2	SUMMONS Issued Electronically as to BABCOCK, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BRANDON CARL FARLEY, THOMAS HILLIGOSS, KENNETH MEUSHAW, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, District of Columbia Attorney General, and the District of Columbia Mayor. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Consent) (md) (Entered: 06/03/2015)	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
	Case Assigned/Reassigned	June 3, 2015	June 3, 2015 PACER
3	GENERAL ORDER AND GUIDELINES FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON. The Court will hold the parties and counsel responsible for following these directives; failure to conform to this Order may, when appropriate, result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 06/25/2015. (lckbj1) (Entered: 06/25/2015)	June 25, 2015	June 25, 2015 PACER
4	NOTICE of Appearance by William Vincent O'Reilly on behalf of All Plaintiffs (O'Reilly, William) (Main Document 4 replaced on 9/25/2015) (jf). (Entered: 09/24/2015)	Sept. 24, 2015	Sept. 24, 2015 PACER
5	AMENDED COMPLAINT against BABCOCK, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BRANDON CARL FARLEY, THOMAS HILLIGOSS, KENNETH MEUSHAW, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, ALAN LARMORE, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS with Jury Demand filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL EUGENE ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E (redline), # 6 Summons Larmore Summons)(O'Reilly, William) (Entered: 09/24/2015)	Sept. 24, 2015	Sept. 24, 2015 PACER
6	NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander E. Blanchard on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Blanchard, Alexander) (Entered: 09/25/2015)	Sept. 25, 2015	Sept. 25, 2015 PACER
7	SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to ALAN LARMORE. (jf) . (Entered: 09/25/2015)	Sept. 25, 2015	Sept. 25, 2015 PACER
8	NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah Ann Hunger on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Hunger, Sarah) (Entered: 09/25/2015)	Sept. 25, 2015	Sept. 25, 2015 PACER
9	REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Unidentified Employees and Agents of the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department and Department of Corrections, # 2 Summons Unidentified Employees and Agents of Prince George's County, # 3 Summons Unidentified Officers, Employees, and Agents of the District of Columbia)(O'Reilly, William) (Entered: 09/27/2015)	Sept. 27, 2015	Sept. 27, 2015 PACER
10	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the District of Columbia Attorney General. Date of Service Upon District of Columbia Attorney General 9/25/2015. Answer due for ALL D.C. DEFENDANTS by 10/16/2015. (Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 09/30/2015)	Sept. 30, 2015	Sept. 30, 2015 PACER
11	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Date of Service Upon the Mayor for the District of Columbia on 09/25/2015. (Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 09/30/2015)	Sept. 30, 2015	Sept. 30, 2015 PACER
12	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. BABCOCK served on 9/28/2015, answer due 10/19/2015; BRANDON FARLEY served on 9/29/2015, answer due 10/20/2015; THOMAS HILLIGOSS served on 9/26/2015, answer due 10/17/2015; ALAN LARMORE served on 9/26/2015, answer due 10/17/2015; KENNETH MEUSHAW served on 9/29/2015, answer due 10/20/2015; PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY served on 9/25/2015, answer due 10/16/2015; UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS served on 9/25/2015, answer due 10/16/2015 (Corkery, Dennis) (Entered: 09/30/2015)	Sept. 30, 2015	Sept. 30, 2015 PACER
13	NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew K. Handley on behalf of AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON (Handley, Matthew) (Entered: 10/09/2015)	Oct. 9, 2015	Oct. 9, 2015 PACER
14	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 5 Amended Complaint, by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pittman, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2015)	Oct. 16, 2015	Oct. 16, 2015 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer	Oct. 16, 2015	Oct. 16, 2015 PACER
	MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, 14 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The District of Columbia shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by 11/25/2015. Any further requests for extensions of time must comply with 3 the Court's General Order and Guidelines for Civil Cases. Counsel is specifically directed to Section 5 of the Appendix to the General Order and Guidelines. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 10/16/2015. (lckbj1)	Oct. 16, 2015	Oct. 16, 2015 PACER
15	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by BABCOCK, BRANDON FARLEY, THOMAS HILLIGOSS, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY (Snoddy, William) (Entered: 10/16/2015)	Oct. 16, 2015	Oct. 16, 2015 PACER
	MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for an extension to answer is GRANTED and moving defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 11/25/2015. It is further ordered that plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to respond to the anticipated motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice as premature. Plaintiffs make seek an extension of time to respond after a motion is filed, in a motion that comports with the Court's General Order and Guidelines. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 10/23/2015. (lckbj1)	Oct. 23, 2015	Oct. 23, 2015 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer	Oct. 23, 2015	Oct. 23, 2015 PACER
16	ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint, by BABCOCK, BRANDON FARLEY, THOMAS HILLIGOSS. Related document: 5 Amended Complaint, filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON.(Snoddy, William) (Entered: 11/19/2015)	Nov. 19, 2015	Nov. 19, 2015 PACER
17	MOTION to Dismiss by PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit !)(Snoddy, William) (Entered: 11/19/2015)	Nov. 19, 2015	Nov. 19, 2015 PACER
18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond To Plaintiff's Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Karpinski, Alex) (Entered: 11/25/2015)	Nov. 25, 2015	Nov. 25, 2015 PACER
19	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 17 MOTION to Dismiss by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON (Hunger, Sarah) (Entered: 11/30/2015)	Nov. 30, 2015	Nov. 30, 2015 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time to	Nov. 30, 2015	Nov. 30, 2015 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply	Nov. 30, 2015	Nov. 30, 2015 PACER
	MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, 19 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 17 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' response to 17 is due by 12/17/2015. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 11/30/2015. (lckbj1)	Nov. 30, 2015	Nov. 30, 2015 PACER
	MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, nunc pro tunc to 11/25/2015. The District of Columbia shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 12/1/2015. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 11/30/2015. (lckbj1)	Nov. 30, 2015	Nov. 30, 2015 PACER
20	MOTION to Dismiss by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Pittman, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/01/2015)	Dec. 1, 2015	Dec. 1, 2015 PACER
21	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION to Dismiss by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON (Hunger, Sarah) (Entered: 12/07/2015)	Dec. 7, 2015	Dec. 7, 2015 PACER
	MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, 21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 20 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' response is due by 1/8/2016. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 12/8/2015. (lckbj3, )	Dec. 8, 2015	Dec. 8, 2015 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply	Dec. 8, 2015	Dec. 8, 2015 PACER
22	Memorandum in opposition to re 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(O'Reilly, William) (Entered: 12/17/2015)	Dec. 17, 2015	Dec. 17, 2015 PACER
23	Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(O'Reilly, William) (Entered: 01/08/2016)	Jan. 8, 2016	Jan. 8, 2016 PACER
24	AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Blanchard, Alexander) (Entered: 01/12/2016)	Jan. 12, 2016	Jan. 12, 2016 PACER
25	MILITARY AFFIDAVIT re 24 Affidavit for Default by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON. (Blanchard, Alexander) (Entered: 01/13/2016)	Jan. 13, 2016	Jan. 13, 2016 PACER
26	MILITARY AFFIDAVIT re 24 Affidavit for Default by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON. (Blanchard, Alexander) (Entered: 01/13/2016)	Jan. 13, 2016	Jan. 13, 2016 PACER
27	ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint, by ALAN LARMORE, KENNETH MEUSHAW. Related document: 5 Amended Complaint, filed by AGNES JOYCE ROBINSON, MICHAEL ROBINSON.(Snoddy, William) (Entered: 01/13/2016)	Jan. 13, 2016	Jan. 13, 2016 PACER
28	MOTION to Dismiss by ALAN LARMORE, KENNETH MEUSHAW (Snoddy, William) (Entered: 01/14/2016)	Jan. 14, 2016	Jan. 14, 2016 PACER

Case: Robinson v. Farley

1:15-cv-00803 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details