Boyd v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 29 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-17-2849 |
| Parties | MARTHA BOYD, et al. Plaintiffs, v. TYLER ARMSTRONG, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This civil rights case arises from the unfortunate death of twenty-one-year-old Tawon Boyd ("Mr. Boyd" or the "Decedent") on September 21, 2016, three days after an encounter with Baltimore County police on September 18, 2016. ECF 2 (the "Complaint").1 In an Amended Complaint (ECF 16), plaintiffs Martha Boyd, the Decedent's mother, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Mr. Boyd, and Deona Styron, the Decedent's fiancé, individually and on behalf of Mr. Boyd's minor child, T.B., sued Baltimore County, Maryland (the "County"), as well as paramedic Kenneth Burns; emergency medical technician Tyler Armstrong (collectively, the "Medics" or the "Medic Defendants"); former Baltimore County Police Chief James W. Johnson, individually and in his official capacity; and several Baltimore County officers, individually and in their official capacities: Michael Bowman, D. Garland, Pearin D. Holt, Bryn M. Blackburn, and Joseph Seckens (collectively, the "Officer Defendants" or the "Officers").
In the early morning hours of September 18, 2016, Mr. Boyd "called 911 requesting assistance with what he believed to be an intruder in his home" in Baltimore County. ECF 16, ¶ 10. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that when the Officers arrived at Mr. Boyd's home, theyunlawfully detained him and subjected him to excessive force. Id. ¶¶ 18-31. The Complaint further asserts that the Medics inappropriately administered an antipsychotic drug, Haloperidol ("Haldol"), to Mr. Boyd, causing cardiac arrest and multi-organ failure. Id. ¶ 43. Mr. Boyd was transported to a hospital, where he died three days later. Id. ¶¶ 49-54.
The Amended Complaint is structured as two claims with multiple counts.2 Claim I is labeled as a "Survival Action" and consists of six counts. Count I ("Assault") and Count II ("Battery") are filed against the Officers and the Medics. Id. ¶¶ 65-78. Count III is lodged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Officers and the Medics, asserting violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Id. ¶¶ 79-82. Count IV asserts a claim against Chief Johnson and the County for "Negligent Supervision, Training, Retention and Custom or Policy of Deliberate Indifference." Id. Count V, lodged against the Medics, alleges "Gross Negligence." Id. ¶¶ 95-102. Count VI, as to all defendants, seeks recovery of funeral expenses. Id. ¶¶ 103-05. Claim II asserts a "Wrongful Death" action against all defendants. Id. ¶¶ 106-09.
The County has moved for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. ECF 43. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 43-1) (collectively, the "County's Motion") and two exhibits. ECF 43-2 - ECF 43-3. Plaintiffs oppose the County's Motion (ECF 46), supported by several exhibits. See ECF 46-3 ("Notice of Lengthy Filing").3 The County has replied (ECF 49) and submitted an additional exhibit. ECF 49-1.
The Medic Defendants have also moved for summary judgment (ECF 44), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 44-1) (collectively, Medics' Motion) and numerous exhibits. ECF 44-3 - ECF 44-16. Plaintiffs oppose the Medics' Motion (ECF 48), accompanied by numerous exhibits. See ECF 48-3 ("Notice of Lengthy Filing"). The Medics have replied (ECF 51), and submitted another exhibit. ECF 51-1.
The Officers moved only for partial summary judgment, with respect to Count III, limited to the issue of whether they had probable cause to seize and detain Mr. Boyd for an emergency mental health evaluation. ECF 45. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 45-1) (collectively, the Officers' Motion) and several exhibits. ECF 45-3 - ECF 45-15. Plaintiffs oppose the Officers' Motion (ECF 47), supported by exhibits. See ECF 47-3 ("Notice of Lengthy Filing").4 The Officers replied (ECF 50) and submitted additional exhibits. ECF 50-1 - ECF 50-3.
Also pending is plaintiffs "Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Reports and to Exclude Defendants' Proposed Experts from Participation at Trial," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). ECF 38. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 38-1) (collectively, the "Motion to Strike"). Plaintiffs contend that defendants' expert reports are "untimely, improper, and should be stricken as unduly prejudicial," for failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). ECF 38-1 at 4. Defendants oppose the Motion to Strike (ECF 39), supported by four exhibits. ECF 39-1 - ECF 39-4. Plaintiffs did not reply, and the time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 105.2(a).
In addition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2), plaintiffs filed an "Objection to and Motion to Strike [ECF] 50-3" (ECF 52, "Objection"), supported by exhibits. ECF 52-2 - ECF 52-3. The Objection concerns ECF 50-3, titled "Baltimore County Police Department Standard Operating Procedure," which is an exhibit appended to the Officers' reply. Plaintiffs assert that ECF 50-3 it is "not self-authenticating" and is therefore "inadmissible." ECF 52, ¶ 9. Further, they argue that they "have not had the opportunity to rebut or challenge the contents of the newly revealed material" and that they "would be unduly prejudiced if the Court were to consider [ECF 50-3] in its ruling" on the defense summary judgment motions. Id.
Defendants oppose the Objection (ECF 53), supported by three exhibits. ECF 53-1 - ECF 53-3. Plaintiffs did not reply, and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 105.2(a).
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the County's Motion (ECF 43); grant the Medics' Motion (ECF 44); and grant the Officers' Motion (ECF 45). I shall deny plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (ECF 38), and I shall deny the Objection (ECF 52). As a result of these rulings, the case shall proceed as to the Officer Defendants.
At the relevant time, Mr. Boyd lived in a townhouse community in the County with his fiancé, Styron; their three-year-old son, T.B.; and Mr. Boyd's grandmother, Linda Burch, who was suffering from dementia. ECF 45-7 (Styron Deposition) at 3-4.
At or about 3:06 a.m. on September 18, 2016, a frantic call was placed to 911 by Mr. Boyd. ECF 45-4 ("Call Records") at 9. He repeatedly asked for help. ECF 45-3 (911 Audio).5 Duringthe phone call with the 911 dispatcher, a woman, later identified as Styron, can be heard "yelling in the background." ECF 45-4 at 4.
According to the Call Records, Mr. Boyd was "very difficult to understand over all of the background noise." Id. at 8. As a result, the dispatcher directed Mr. Boyd "to go outside several times." Id. Mr. Boyd responded that "everything was ok," but the dispatcher noted that the "female was still screaming in the background." Id. at 9. About ten minutes into the call, Styron said to the dispatcher, "Tell them to hurry up." Id. at 10.
At about 3:09 a.m., Officer Seckens arrived at Mr. Boyd's home. Id. Officer Seckens, who was in uniform, encountered Mr. Boyd and Styron "out front kind of arguing back and forth, yelling and screaming at each other." ECF 45-5 (Seckens Deposition) at 6; id. at 5. According to Seckens, Mr. Boyd seemed to be "very paranoid," id. at 4, and "was sweating profusely." Id. at 6. Mr. Boyd gave his driver's license to Seckens and identified himself as Tawon Boyd. Id. at 4.
At Seckens' deposition, he described his initial encounter with Mr. Boyd and Styron as follows, ECF 45-5 at 4:
I just tried to speak to both of them out front, what was going on, what was wrong. I immediately knew that, it was immediately apparent Mr. Boyd was just not acting right. Like I said before, he wasn't speaking with me. He was very paranoid, as if someone was after him, was looking around, claiming people were in the house and Ms. Styron got him intoxicated and was recording him. So he was not acting as a normal person should.
Shortly after the arrival of Seckens, Officer Garland arrived at the home, followed by Officer Bowman. ECF 45-9 (Garland Deposition), at 3-4. Garland testified that Boyd "was sweating like profusely . . . ." Id. at 4. He added, id.: "[T]hat's the most sweating I've ever seen [from] somebody." Id.
Garland entered the residence with Styron to separate her from Mr. Boyd and "to try to get her side of the story." Id.; see also ECF 45-7 at 4. According to Garland, this was standardprocedure in handling domestic disputes. ECF 45-9 at 3. Garland questioned Styron in the living room. Id. at 5. Garland and Styron were unable to see Mr. Boyd, Seckens, or Bowman, all of whom were outside. Id.; ECF 45-7 at 5.
According to Garland, Styron reported that Mr. Boyd had been drinking and smoking marijuana during the evening. ECF 45-9 at 5. Garland testified at his deposition, id.:
[Styron] said that they were down [at] the Inner Harbor, and that [Mr. Boyd] had been drinking. And then they stopped at a cousin's house on the way back home. And she believed that he was smoking marijuana with one of the cousins or something. I asked her if it was just marijuana because of all the sweating. And she said she's not sure because she wasn't with him when he was smoking because they went out back or something. So she wasn't actually with him when he was smoking the marijuana.
Styron vigorously disputes Garland's account of their conversation. ECF 45-7 at 5. In her words, Garland said that Mr. Boyd "got to be on drugs or something because of the way he was sweating," but she "was telling [Garland] that he wasn't." Id. She maintains that the officer kept "insisting" that Boyd was on drugs, but she "kept telling him that he wasn't . . . ." Id. at 6.
Bowman, who was outside with Mr. Boyd, observed that Mr. Boyd appeared "very fidgety" and "wanted to check all his surroundings, look[ing]...
To continue reading
Request your trial