United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge
This
case[1]
arises from allegations that Baltimore City police officers
unlawfully stopped Plaintiff Tavon Hunt ("Hunt" or
"Plaintiff) on August 16, 2015, unlawfully searched his
vehicle, and used excessive force against him. Plaintiff
filed a Complaint on November 22, 2017 against the City of
Baltimore, Police Officer Jeremy Johnston
("Johnston"), John Doe Officers 1-5, and John Doe
Supervisors 1-10, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights and making a claim for money damages under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1988. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Upon notice
that the Complaint was filed incorrecdy, Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) on November 29, 2017,
changing the unnamed Defendants in the caption to John Doe
Officers 1-25 and John Doe Supervisors 1-20, although not
adding or changing the allegations against any of the
Defendants. The City of Baltimore was voluntarily dismissed
from this action on February 12, 2018. (ECF No. 10.)
On
April 13, 2018, this Court granted in part Defendant
Johnston's dismissal motion, allowing Plain tiff the
opportunity to file an amended complaint, by May 14, 2018,
that included a statement of what was specifically being
claimed against Defendant Johnston. (ECF No. 14.) On May 15,
2018, Johnston filed a renewed dismissal motion in light of
Plaintiff s failure to file an amended complaint within the
allowed timeframe. (ECF No. 15.) That same day, Plaintiffs
counsel responded with a proposed Second Amended Complaint
seeking the Court's indulgence due to an unforeseen error
on counsel's part that prevented its timely filing. (ECF
No. 16.) Johnston objected, but after a telephone conference
with Judge Garbis of this Court, the parties agreed to
proceed on the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) This
two-count complaint makes allegations against only Johnston
and John Doe Officers 1-2: (1) an excessive force claim, and
(2) an unlawful detention claim. (ECF No. 19.)
Now
pending before this Court are five motions: (1)
Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admission be
Admitted (ECF No. 24); (2) Defendant's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25); (3) Plaintiffs Motion to Amend
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28); (4) Defendant's Second
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34); and (5)
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 41).
The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no
hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2018).
For the
reasons that follow, this Court shall GRANT Defendant
Johnston's motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 25, 34)
and DENY Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF
No. 41) because any amendment in a proposed third amended
complaint would be futile. Defendant's Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission be Admitted (ECF No. 24) and
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28)
shall be DENIED AS MOOT.
BACKGROUND
On
August 16, 2015, Hunt was driving to his
mother's[2] house with his girlfriend and a child in
the vehicle. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 19.) He
was driving a 2002, Mercedes CLK 320 that had tinted windows
darker than legal limits.[3] (Dep. Tr. 36, 37, 58, ECF No. 34-1.)
Hunt became aware that he was being followed by police
officers. (Id. at 52-54.) When Hunt arrived at his
destination, he parked and exited the vehicle and was
immediately approached by the police officers, who requested
his license and registration. (Id. at 52-53.) In his
Second Amended Complaint, now pending before this Court, Hunt
alleged that he was in the vehicle, but he complied and
exited when the officers demanded he exit the vehicle.
(¶ 12, ECF No. 19.)
Hunt
informed the officers that his license and registration were
in the vehicle, and one of the police officers retrieved the
license from the vehicle. (Dep. Tr. 54-55, ECF No. 34-1.)
Hunt described the police officer as an African American with
a goatee and dark complexion. (Id. at 56.) During
the encounter, Hunt was given a citation for failure to
display his driver's license and a repair order for his
window tinting.[4] (Id. at 60.) The same police
officer frisked Hunt and searched his vehicle. (Id.
at 56-57.) In his complaint, Hunt alleged that the frisking
was excessively aggressive, and his genitals were groped,
even though he had not resisted or displayed any threatening
behavior. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17, 19, ECF No.
19.) Hunt indicated that the officer told him that they had
received a call about suspicious activity in the
neighborhood. (Dep. Tr. 57, ECF No. 34-1.) After Hunt signed
the citations, he was free to leave. (Id. at
66.) A part of the encounter was video recorded by
Hunt's girlfriend on her cell phone. (Id. at 57,
64, 68-69, 71, ECF No. 34-1; ECF No. 25-1.) Hunt agrees that
it is apparent from the video that the officer that frisked
him and issued the citations was not the named Defendant
Johnston, who is a fair-skinned Caucasian man and had no
physical interaction with Hunt. (See ECF No. 25-1,
ECF No. 28.)
On
November 22, 2017, Hunt filed a Complaint against the City of
Baltimore, Jeremy Johnston, John Doe Officers 1-5, and John
Doe Supervisors 1-10, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 1988, and the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 1.)
The Complaint included four causes of action: (1) Count I
-Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Municipal Liability) against the City of Baltimore; (2)
Count II - Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments - Supervisory
Violations) against the Defendant Supervisors; (3) Count III
- Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments - Excessive Force) against
the Individual Defendant Officers; and (4) Count IV -
Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth
Amendment - Failure to Intervene) against the Individual
Defendant Officers. Hunt's First Amended Complaint, filed
on November 29, 2017 in response to a correction notice, was
substantively the same, although he modified the unnamed
Defendants to John Doe Officers 1-25 and John Doe Supervisors
1-20. (ECF No. 4.)
On
February 2, 2018, the City of Baltimore filed a motion
seeking to dismiss the claim against it for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 7.) In
response, Hunt voluntarily dismissed the City of Baltimore as
a Defendant. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)
On
February 2, 2018, Defendant Johnston also filed a motion
seeking dismissal, or in the alternative for more definite
statement, because there were no facts alleged to link him
with the Complaint's claims. (ECF No. 9.) On April 17,
2018, Judge Garbis of this Court granted Johnston's
dismissal motion in part (ECF No. 14.) Under the
circumstances, this Court found it appropriate to require
Hunt to file an amended complaint that stated more clearly
what was being claimed against Johnston. (Id.) This
Court ordered Hunt to file the amended complaint by May 14,
2018 or all claims against Johnston would be dismissed with
prejudice. (Id.) After Hunt failed to meet the
ordered deadline, on May 15, 2018, Johnston filed a renewed
dismissal motion seeking dismissal with prejudice. (ECF No.
15.) An immediate response from Hunt's counsel requesting
this Court's consideration, due to an unforeseen error on
counsel's part, led to a telephone conference and this
Court's Order (ECF No. 18)[5] on June 27, 2018 accepting the
proposed Second Amended Complaint for filing and dismissing
Johnston's renewed dismissal motion. The Second Amended
Complaint, the operative Complaint, is filed against Johnston
and John Doe Officers 1-2 and contains two causes of actions:
(1) Count I - Violation of Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments - Excessive
Force); and (2) Count II - Violation of Civil Rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment - Unlawful Detention).
(ECF No. 19.)
On July
31, 2019, Johnston answered the Second Amended Complaint and
a Scheduling Order was issued. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) The
deadline for requests for modification of the initial
Scheduling Order was set for August 14, 2018 and moving for
joinder or additional parties and amendment of pleadings was
set for September 14, 2018. (ECF No. 21.) The discovery
deadline was set for December 13, 2018. (Id.)
On
September 25, 2018, Johnston filed Defendant's Motion to
Deem Requests for Admission be Admitted (ECF No. 24) due to
Hunt's failure to timely respond to Defendant's First
Requests for Admissions, which had been served on August 8,
2018. The next day, September 26, 2018, Johnston filed a
motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the
excessive force claim against him on the basis that the video
evidence clearly revealed he had not participated in any
frisk. (ECF No. 25.) Although Hunt had been informed of the
mistaken identity issue by emails on July 25 and 31, he
failed to voluntarily dismiss the claim. (Id. at 5.)
Hunt
did not respond to either of Johnston's motions until
October 10, 2018, at which time he also filed a motion
seeking to amend the scheduling order. (ECF No. 28.) Hunt
contends that his counsel asked Defendant's counsel to
identify the other officers in the video so that they could
be properly named in the complaint, but the names were not
provided until September 25, 2018, which was eleven days
after the Scheduling Order deadline for amendment of
pleadings. (Id. at 1.)
On
October 15, 2018, Defendant Johnston filed a second motion
for summary judgment, this time seeking dismissal of the
unlawful detention claim because it has no basis in fact or
law as evidenced by Hunt's deposition testimony. (ECF No.
34 at 1.) Finally, on January 11, 2019, Hunt filed a motion
seeking to file a third amended complaint. (ECF No. 41.) In
his proposed third amended complaint, Hunt seeks to replace
the unnamed officers ...