Burley v. Balt. Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 12 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-18-1743 |
| Citation | 422 F.Supp.3d 986 |
| Parties | Umar Hassan BURLEY, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Andrew C. White, Erin Catherine Murphy, Steven Donald Silverman, William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Andrew David Freeman, Chelsea Jones Crawford, Joshua R. Treem, Neel Lalchandani, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs.
Neil E. Duke, Baker Donelson, James Howard Fields, Fields Peterson LLC, Alexa Ackerman, Justin Sperance Conroy, Kara K. Lynch, Natalie Rose Amato, Baltimore City Department of Law, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.
This civil rights case is rooted in the disturbing events of April 28, 2010, and involves current and former members of the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD" or the "Department") and its now defunct Gun Trace Trask Force ("GTTF").
In a 59-page Second Amended Complaint ("SAC," ECF 23), plaintiffs Umar Hassan Burley and Brent Andre Matthews filed suit against the BPD; former Deputy Commissioner Dean Palmere; and several former and current police officers: former Sergeant Wayne Earl Jenkins; former Sergeant Richard Willard; Sergeant William Knoerlein; Sergeant Ryan Guinn; Lieutenant Michael Fries; and former Officer Keith Gladstone.1
Plaintiffs allege that on April 28, 2010, members of the BPD, "wearing plainclothes" and "masks," "jumped out" of their vehicles "with their guns drawn." Id . ¶¶ 216, 217, 218. Plaintiffs, in fear that "they were about to be robbed," sped away in Burley's motor vehicle. Id . ¶¶ 2, 221. During the high speed chase that ensued, Burley drove through an intersection and crashed into a vehicle driven by Elbert Davis. Id. ¶ 223. Tragically, Mr. Davis was killed. Id .2 The police officers then "planted approximately 32 grams of heroin on the floor" of Burley's vehicle to justify their "illegal acts[.]" Id . ¶ 228. Thereafter, based on "a fabricated statement of probable cause," id . ¶ 234, Burley and Matthews were charged in federal court with drug related offenses. See United States v. Burley, et al. , Case No. RDB-11-74; see also ECF 23, ¶ 238. In addition, the State charged Burley with vehicular manslaughter. See Baltimore City Circuit Court Case No. 110294026; ECF 23, ¶ 239.
In the federal case, Burley and Matthews ultimately pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin. And, Burley pleaded guilty in State court to vehicular manslaughter. Id . ¶ 243. However, in 2017 and 2018, plaintiffs' convictions were vacated, after it was determined that the underlying federal charges were unfounded and the product of police corruption. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.
The SAC contains thirteen counts. Id . ¶¶ 267-342. Counts I through VI assert claims under federal law, and Counts VII through XIII are premised on Maryland law. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, and payment for the civil judgment obtained by the family of Mr. Davis against Burley, in the amount of $1,092,500, plus post-judgment interest. Id . at 58.
Count I, titled "Violation of Due Process," is lodged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard. Id . ¶¶ 267-73. Count II asserts a claim of "Malicious Prosecution" under § 1983 against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard. Id . ¶¶ 274-79. Count III, lodged against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, Willard, Knoerlein, Fries, and Palmere, alleges a claim of "Failure to Intervene" under § 1983. Id . ¶¶ 280-83. Count IV, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, asserts a claim against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard for "Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights." Id . ¶¶ 284-90. Count V alleges a "Supervisor Liability" claim under § 1983 against Willard, Knoerlein, Fries, and Palmere. Id . ¶¶ 291-96. Count VI asserts a " Monell Liability" claim against the BPD, pursuant to § 1983. Id . ¶¶ 297-304.
Count VII asserts a claim of "Malicious Prosecution" against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard. Id . ¶¶ 305-316. In Count VIII, plaintiffs allege "Abuse of Process," filed against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard. Id . ¶¶ 317-21. Count IX asserts a claim of "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard. Id . ¶¶ 322-25. In Count X, plaintiffs assert a claim of "Civil Conspiracy" against Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard. Id . ¶¶ 326-30. Count XI, lodged against Guinn, Gladstone, and Willard, is filed pursuant to Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Id . ¶¶ 331-33. In Count XII, plaintiffs seek "Indemnification" against the BPD. And, in Count XIII, they seek "Indemnification for Civil Judgment" against Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, and the BPD. Id . ¶¶ 334-42.
Three motions to dismiss are pending. BPD and Palmere move to dismiss the SAC, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. ECF 29. It is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 29-2 (collectively, the "BPD Motion"). They contend that plaintiffs' claims against them are time-barred. Id . at 2. BPD also asserts that it is protected by sovereign immunity as to plaintiffs' State law claims. Id . In addition, defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to state a claim against Palmere for failure to intervene in Count III, and lack standing to seek indemnification in Counts XII and XIII. Id .
Fries, Gladstone, Guinn, Knoerlein, and Willard (the "Officer Defendants")3 join the BPD motion and move to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 33. Their motion is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 33-1 (collectively, the "Officer Motion"). They assert that all claims, except for plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claims, are time-barred, because plaintiffs "knew the operative facts underpinning their causes of action well within the three year period, but chose to wait to file their suit until eight years later." Id . ¶¶ 5-6. In addition, they argue that Count V (Supervisory Liability) and Count VII (Malicious Prosecution) fail to state a claim. Id . ¶¶ 7-9.
In a consolidated submission, plaintiffs oppose the BPD Motion and the Officer Motion. ECF 35. They assert that their § 1983 claims are timely because "they did not accrue until Plaintiffs' criminal proceedings fully resolved when their convictions were vacated in December 2017." Id . at 13. Further, they contend that they stated claims for malicious prosecution, failure to intervene, and supervisory liability. Id . at 23.
The BPD (ECF 40) and the Officer Defendants (ECF 42) have replied. In BPD's reply, the Department asserts that it is not subject to Monell liability. ECF 40 at 9. With leave of court (ECF 45), plaintiffs have filed a surreply. ECF 46.
Jenkins joins the BPD Motion and the Officer Motion. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), he also moves to dismiss the SAC, asserting that plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. ECF 41. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 41-1 (collectively, the "Jenkins Motion"). Plaintiffs oppose the Jenkins Motion. ECF 43.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant in part and deny in part the BPD Motion (ECF 29); deny the Officer Motion (ECF 33); and deny the Jenkins Motion (ECF 41).
At all relevant times, Jenkins, Guinn, Gladstone, Willard, Knoerlein, Fries, and Palmere were employed by the BPD. ECF 23, ¶ 24.
In 2007, "the BPD formed a new elite, plainclothes unit known as the Violent Crime Impact Division ["VCID"] to focus on ‘bad guys with guns.’ " ECF 23, ¶ 56.5
According to plaintiffs, the unit is also known as the Violent Crime Impact Section ("VCIS") and was previously called the Organized Crime Division. Id. ¶ 25. Also in 2007, the BPD formed the GTTF, "with the stated goal of tracking and curbing illegal gun sales and gun activity." Id . ¶ 157.
Gladstone "is a former member of the BPD." Id . ¶ 27. He joined the Department in 1992. Id. In 2008, he joined the VCID, and was a member of that unit at the relevant time. Id .
Jenkins joined the BPD on February 20, 2003. Id . ¶ 25. And, plaintiffs assert that Jenkins joined the VCID in June 2006. Id.6 Jenkins was promoted to Sergeant on November 30, 2012, and in June 2016 he was "named supervisor" of the GTTF. Id .
Guinn "is a current member of the BPD." Id . ¶ 26. In April 2010, Guinn was a member of VCID. Id. And, he is a former member of the GTTF. Id .
Willard is a former member of the Department. Id . ¶ 28. He "joined the BPD in 1992." Id . In April 2010, Willard was "a Sergeant in VCID" and "directly supervised" Jenkins. Id .
Knoerlein "is a current member of the BPD." Id . ¶ 29. In April 2010, he "was a Sergeant in VCID and directly supervised" Gladstone and Jenkins. Id .
Fries is "a current member of the BPD." Id . ¶ 30. From at least 2004 to 2006, Fries "was part of a Special Enforcement Team" ("SET") and he "supervised" Jenkins. Id .7 In April 2010, Fries "was a Lieutenant in VCID and directly supervised" Gladstone. Id .
Palmere was employed by the Department for more than twenty years before he retired in 2018. Id . ¶ 31. During his employment, he "held various supervisory roles within the BPD in which he oversaw plainclothes units." Id .; see also ¶ 134. From 2008 to 2010, Palmere "led VCID." Id . As the head of VCID, Palmere "was a supervisor responsible for Officers Jenkins, Guinn, and Gladstone[.]" Id . ¶ 140. And, in 2010 "he was promoted to Chief of the Criminal Investigations Division, into which VCID merged." Id . In 2011, Palmere "briefly served as Chief of the Patrol Division." Id . In 2012, he returned "to his role as Chief of the Criminal Investigations Division." Id . From 2013 until Palmere retired in 2018, he "served as Deputy Commissioner overseeing the BPD's Patrol and Operations Bureaus, under which the plainclothes units...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. Balt. Police Dep't
...before the Fourth Circuit, United States District Judges in this District have rejected that contention. See Burley v. Balt. Police Dep't , 422 F.Supp.3d 986, 1023-26 (D. Md. 2019), appeal docketed and consolidated , No. 19-2029 (4th Cir. Sept. 27, 2019); Lucero v. Early , No. GLR-13-1036, ......
-
Leaders of A Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep't, Civil Action No. RDB-20-0929
...to suit under § 1983 when its official policies or customs result in constitutional rights deprivations. Burley v. Baltimore Police Dep't , 422 F. Supp. 3d 986, 1014 (D. Md. 2019).The Defendants do not raise any arguments concerning whether they may be sued under § 1983 or a Monell theory o......
-
Johnson v. Balt. Police Dep't
...Defendants argue that the AFSL letters "are public records, the authenticity of which is not in dispute," because they were included in the Burley state court file. ECF 74 at 1; see also id. at 1-2. Thus, according to Defendants, this Court may take judicial notice of all assertions made th......
-
McPherson v. Balt. Police Dep't
...are sufficient factual allegations regarding their presence at the time Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated. See Burley , 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1030 (noting that a failure to intervene claim requires the officer to know that a constitutional deprivation is taking place and to have ......