United States District Court, D. Maryland
JOSEPH L. YOUNG Plaintiff
DETECTIVE DANIEL SANTOS, and DETECTIVE MICHAEL BOYD Defendants
L. Russell, III United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants, Detective Daniel
Santos and Detective Michael Boyd's Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 27). Defendants renewed their Motion in
response to Plaintiff Joseph L. Young's Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 30). (ECF No. 31). The Motions are ripe for
disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local
Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2016). For the reasons outlined below, the
Court will grant Defendants' Motions.
is incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confined
to McCrary Penitentiary in Pine Knot, Kentucky. He states
that on February 28, 2012, Officer Lane was dispatched to 307
N. Payson Street in Baltimore, Maryland for a report of a
shooting. (Compl. at 4, ECF No. 1). Shortly thereafter,
Detective Michael Boyd responded to the scene and assumed
control of the investigation. (Id.).
testifies that Raylanair Reese voluntarily contacted the
Baltimore Police Department and provided information
implicating Plaintiff in McFadden's shooting. (Boyd Aff.
at 2, ECF No. 27). Based on the information provided by
Reese, Boyd prepared a photographic array that included
Plaintiff's picture and presented it to McFadden on March
4, 2012. (Id.). At that time, McFadden positively
identified Plaintiff as the shooter. (Id.). Young
adds that the array featured six Black men, one of whom was
him, and agrees that the eyewitness identified Young as the
shooter. (Compl. at 5). Santos testifies that he witnessed
McFadden's positive identification of Plaintiff as the
shooter from the photographic array prepared by Boyd. (Santos
Aff. at 2, ECF No. 27). Santos further states that Reese
continued to provide information regarding Plaintiff before
and after his arrest. (Id.).
on the information provided by Reese and McFadden's
identification of Young, Boyd states that a warrant was
issued on March 5, 2012 for Plaintiff's arrest.
Plaintiff was found and arrested at 3011 Normount Court; the
premises were searched pursuant to a search and seizure
March 2, 2012, Santos and Boyd charged Plaintiff with
attempted murder and handgun violations. Young asserts that
Defendants obtained fraudulent search and seizure warrants,
which were then executed at Young's residence in
states that the case against him unraveled quickly because
the shooting victim was unable to identify him as the shooter
and “recanted his statement.” (Id. at
6). In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the “anonymous
state witness positively stated that Plaintiff was not the
person she had seen.” (Id.). Young also pleads
that there was no warrant issued at the time of the search of
his house, and there was evidence that Raylanair Reese, a
witness for the State, had been coerced to provide a
statement. Plaintiff alleges that there was evidence of 458
text messages from Defendant Santos to Reese suggesting what
she should say. (Id.).
January 8, 2014, the case against Young was dismissed. Young
states that this was due to Defendants using perjurious
statements to affect an arrest. (Id.). Young brings
claims based on false arrest, defamation of character,
malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and emotional
distress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). As relief,
Plaintiff seeks damages of $500, 000. (Id. at 3).
Supplement to the Complaint (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff
reiterates the same allegations raised in the Complaint and
adds as Defendants the State of Maryland, Baltimore City
Police Commissioner Kevon Davis, Sgt. Fried, Detectives
Maurice Ward, Krauss, Addi, Brooks and Garrett. Young adds a
claim that Ward participated in coercing Raylanair Reese in
giving a statement implicating Plaintiff in the shooting.
(Id. at 7). He alleges that “the actions of
Boyd, Santos, Krauss,  Addi, Brooks, Fried, and Garrett”
were unlawfully unreasonable “and without probable
cause.” (Id. at 10). He asserts that
Police Commissioner Davis is responsible for the policies of
the Baltimore City Police Department and the actions of the
employees of the department. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff
further pleads that Davis had a duty to intervene and his
failure to do so “ratified” the actions of the
police officers involved in Plaintiff's arrest and the
search of his property. (Id. at 12). None of the
additional Defendants have been served with the Complaint.
Standard of Review 1. Motion to Dismiss
purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency
of a complaint, ” not to “resolve contests
surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the
applicability of defenses.” King v.
Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243-44
(4th Cir. 1999)). A complaint fails to state a claim if it
does not contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), or does not “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, ” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). Though the plaintiff is not required to
forecast evidence to prove ...