Chang-Williams v. United States

Citation965 F.Supp.2d 673
Decision Date15 August 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. DKC 10–0783.
PartiesAngele L. CHANG–WILLIAMS, et al. v. UNITED STATES of America.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Beverly Ann Henderson, Law Office of Beverly Henderson, Washington, DC, Sunwoo Nam, Sunwoo Nam Attorney at Law, Silver Spring, MD, for Angele L. Chang–Williams, et al.

Thomas H. Barnard, Jason Daniel Medinger, Office of the US Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for United States of America.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending in this case arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant the United States of America (“the Government”). (ECF No. 66). The issues are fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

I. BackgroundA. Factual Background

Except as otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. On the night of Friday, November 1, 2002, the Prince George's County Police Department responded to a report of domestic violence at 833 Worley Drive in Landover, Maryland. (ECF No. 66–11, at 2). The police took Estabon Eugene, Jr., into custody and charged him with second degree assault of his wife, Nakeisha Eugene. ( Id. at 1). An ambulance transported Nakeisha to Andrews Air Force Base, and she was later transferred to Walter Reed Hospital.

At the time of this domestic dispute, Estabon Eugene served as a sergeant with the United States Marine Corps and was stationed at Henderson Hall in Arlington, Virginia. Sgt. Eugene worked as a watch officer at a “local control center” for the Marine Corps' Defense Messaging System. With respect to Sgt. Eugene's day-to-day work, Staff Sergeant Fernando Steverson served as his first-line supervisor, and Gunnery Sergeant Harold Holden as his second-line supervisor. (ECF No. 66–3, Holden Dep., at 11–14). Gy. Sgt. Holden reported to Master Sergeant Bruce Witherspoon, who, in turn, reported to then-Captain James Richards. ( Id. at 11, 38). Captain Richards reported to then-Major Stephen Crow, who reported to Lt. Col. Allen Katzberg. (ECF No. 66–5, Crow Decl. ¶ 3; ECF No. 66–6, Katzberg Decl. ¶ 3). Each of these “operational” supervisors had the ability to make recommendations about disciplinary measures to be taken against Sgt. Eugene. ( See ECF No. 66–4, Richards Dep., at 21–22). According to the Government, however, only those officers with “command authority”—specifically, those officers in “Battalion Command”—had the ability to impose disciplinary measures. ( See, e.g., ECF No. 66–4, Richards Dep., at 21; ECF No. 66–8, Reed Decl. ¶ 4). As of November 2002, only Col. J.M. Reed, the Battalion Commander, had the authority to restrict Sgt. Eugene to base. ( Id.).

On Saturday, November 2, 2002, Master Sgt. Witherspoon secured Sgt. Eugene's release by posting bail. ( See ECF No. 66–12). Master Sgt. Witherspoon took Sgt. Eugene to the office of First Sgt. Paul Broadnax, who served as part of Col. Reed's Battalion Command staff. Rather than allowing Sgt. Eugene to return to the residence he shared with Nakeisha, Sgt. Broadnax arranged for Sgt. Eugene to be [p]ut ... back to the barracks” at Henderson Hall and “g[a]ve him a room until the first workday,” at which point the situation would be assessed by Battalion Command. (ECF No. 66–9, Broadnax Dep., at 40–41). Sgt. Broadnax testified that, during this “short duration of time” before the first workday of Monday, November 4, Sgt. Eugene was not free to leave the barracks as a “precautionary measure.” ( Id. at 74). The Government's Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) designee, however, testified that Sgt. Eugene was never restricted to base or otherwise precluded from going back to his residence. (ECF No. 66–2, Greer Dep., at 36–37).

Also on Saturday, November 2, Sgt. Steverson and Sgt. Ford, another Marine Corps officer, visited Nakeisha at Walter Reed Hospital. (ECF No. 66–15, Angele Dep., at 45). The officers spoke with two of Nakeisha's aunts, Plaintiff Angele Chang–Williams and non-party Ursula Charley. ( Id. at 59). During this conversation, one of the officers represented that Sgt. Eugene would not be able to stay in the Eugene house but would “have to go back to the barracks.” ( Id.). Based on this statement, Angele believed that Sgt. Eugene was in the barracks at Henderson Hall for the rest of the weekend. ( Id. at 72–73). After being discharged from the hospital later in the day on November 2, Nakeisha went to stay at Ursula's house in Prince George's County, Maryland.

On Monday, November 4, 2002, Captain Richards attempted to visit Nakeisha at the hospital after seeing a photograph of her injuries. (ECF No. 66–4, Richards Dep., at 44). When he discovered that Nakeisha had already been discharged, Captain Richards briefed Lt. Col. Katzberg, his supervisor, about the extent of Nakeisha's injuries and stated that “I need to go check on her.” ( Id. at 44–45). Captain Richards testified that his motivation in visiting Nakeisha was to “console her, and see how she was doing and if there was anything I could [do to] help her.” ( Id.). At that time, Captain Richards also told Lt. Col. Katzberg that Sgt. Eugene should “be placed on restricted disciplinary action” because “it was unsatisfactory for any woman to take injuries like that.” ( Id. at 18–19). In fact, “to [Captain Richards's] understanding, [Sgt. Eugene] already was [on restriction].” ( Id. at 18).

Later that day, Captain Richards and Gy. Sgt. Holden visited Nakeisha at her Aunt Ursula's house in Maryland. (ECF No. 66–3, Holden Dep., at 17). Like Captain Richards, Gy. Sgt. Holden testified that the purpose of their visit was “purely sympathetic” and that they wanted to “just go there just to show that we [ ] were sorry.” ( Id.). In addition to Nakeisha and Ursula, Nakeisha's mother, Carolyn Rhea, and her sister, Shelita Simmons, also were present.

The details of the visit are in dispute. Nakeisha recalls telling the officers that she feared for her safety and the safety of her family, which included her daughter, mother, and sister; the Charley family; and the Chang family. (ECF No. 66–16, Nakeisha Dep., at 41). Nakeisha remembers telling the officers that she believed Sgt. Eugene “was real angry” and that “in [her] heart, [she] knew he was going to do anything to try to get to [her], no matter who it meant having to hurt.” ( Id. at 42). Carolyn recalls that both she and Nakeisha asked the officers “for protection” for Nakeisha and her family. (ECF No. 66–17, Carolyn Dep., at 35). Nakeisha and Carolyn also both remember specifically mentioning the names of members of the Chang and Charley families in the request for protection because Sgt. Eugene knew that Nakeisha had turned to them in the past for help. ( Id. at 35–37; ECF No. 66–16, Nakeisha Dep., at 41). Nakeisha, Carolyn, and Shelita each aver that, in responseto these requests, Captain Richards and Gy. Sgt. Holden assured them (1) that Sgt. Eugene would be “detained” or “restricted” to base; and (2) that, if Sgt. Eugene needed to leave the base, he would be “monitored” or “escorted” by another Marine. (ECF No. 66–16, Nakeisha Dep., at 42; ECF No. 66–17, Carolyn Dep., at 29; ECF No. 66–18, Shelita Dep., at 22). Based on these assurances, Nakeisha “felt that [there] was going to be some security for the Charley family and the Chang family.” (ECF No. 66–16, Nakeisha Dep., at 44).

Gy. Sgt. Holden and Captain Richards both deny ever making any promises of protection to Nakeisha or her family. (ECF No. 66–3, Holden Dep., at 20; ECF No. 66–4, Richards Dep., at 67). Gy. Sgt. Holden specifically denies making any promises that Sgt. Eugene would be restricted to base or that he would be escorted by a Marine off-base, and further testified that it would have been “out of [their] authority” to do so because only Battalion Command could impose such measures. (ECF No. 66–3, Holden Dep., at 21). Although Captain Richards does not specifically recall that anyone asked about what “was being done” to Sgt. Eugene, he avers that he “wouldn't have had any answers for them” because, at that point, he did not know for sure if Sgt. Eugene was actually being restricted to Henderson Hall. (ECF No. 66–4, Richards Dep. at 62–63). Captain Richards was aware, however, that [t]here was hearsay from over the weekend that [Sgt. Eugene] was going to be taken to the barracks and put on restriction over the weekend until Monday.” ( Id. at 53). Captain Richards also admits that, at the time of the visit to the Charley residence, he assumed that Nakeisha would not be able to return to Sgt. Eugene because he “was going to be on restriction.” ( Id. at 61; see also id. at 18–19).

After their visit to the Charley residence, Captain Richards returned to Henderson Hall and again briefed his supervisor, Lt. Col. Katzberg, about the extent of Nakeisha's injuries. (ECF No. 66–4, Richards Dep., at 63). He also again recommended that disciplinary action be taken against Sgt. Eugene and, specifically, that Sgt. Eugene be placed on restriction. ( Id. at 44). Captain Richards's supervisors later told him that “command will take it from here,” at which point “there [was] nothing else [he] personally could have done.” ( Id.). Lt. Col. Katzberg avers that neither Captain Richards nor Gy. Sgt. Holden ever told him that they had made any promises to the spouses of Sgt. Eugene or to any other persons.” (ECF No. 66–6, Katzberg Decl. ¶ 5). Had they done so, Lt. Col. Katzberg avers that he “would have chewed them out, and immediately contacted the command to take corrective action, because neither Richards nor Holden, nor the Marine Corps, had the authority to make promises of protection to civilians living in town off-base.” ( Id.).

Also on Monday, November 4, Ursula called Angele to tell her about the visit by Captain Richards and Gy. Sgt. Holden. (ECF No. 66–15, Angele Dep., at 73). Ursula told Angele that sh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Pga W. Residential Ass'n, Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 9, 2017
    ...defense that needs to be pleaded in a defendant's answer to avoid waiver [i.e., forfeiture]." ( Chang–Williams v. U .S . (D.Md. 2013) 965 F.Supp.2d 673, 694, fn. 9, citing Roskam Baking Co ., Inc . v. Lanham Mach . Co . (6th Cir. 2002) 288 F.3d 895, 902–904 & Am. Fed'n of Teachers , AFL-CIO......
  • United States v. Alvarado
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • November 20, 2014
    ...995 F.2d at 1001; United States v. Lewis, 505 Fed. Appx. 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished)3; Chang-Williams v. United States, 965 F. Supp. 2d 673, 689 (D. Md. 2013). It is undisputed, however, that Alvarado and Nau were not on active duty at the times relevant to these offens......
  • Coleman v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • April 23, 2014
    ...agency and that claim has been denied or remains unresolved after six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Chang-Williams v. United States, 965 F. Supp. 2d 673, 698-99 (D. Md. 2013). The United States may raise failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA as an affirmative defense.......
  • Branhaven, LLC v. Beeftek, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 15, 2013
    ... ... Scidera, Inc., Counter–Defendant. Civil No. WDQ–11–2334. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division. Aug. 15, 2013 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT