Chang–williams v. Dep't of The Navy

Decision Date02 February 2011
Docket NumberCivil Action No. DKC 10–0783.
PartiesAngele L. CHANG–WILLIAMSv.DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Angele L. Chang–Williams, Capitol Heights, MD, pro se.Jason Daniel Medinger, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for Department of the Navy, et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending in this case brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) are the Government's motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment (ECF No. 10), as well as motions for leave to supplement filed by Defendant United States (ECF No. 14) and Plaintiff Angele Chang–Williams (ECF No. 15). 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 Government's motion, which will be construed as a motion for summary judgment, will be granted in part and denied in part. In addition, both motions to supplement will be granted.1

As a threshold matter, the proper defendant in this FTCA action is the United States. The other three defendants named in Chang–Williams' complaint—the Department of the Navy, “JAG,” and the Marine Corps—must be dismissed from this case. The FTCA expressly provides that federal agencies are not amenable to suit under its provisions. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a); see also Holmes v. Eddy, 341 F.2d 477, 480 (4th Cir.1965). The Act provides for liability against only [t]he United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2674, and plaintiffs seeking relief under the Act may pursue it against that defendant alone, Strong v. Dyar, 573 F.Supp.2d 880, 884–85 (D.Md.2008).

I. BackgroundA. Factual Background

The facts of this case are tragic. Just before midnight on November 12, 2002, Chang–Williams and her family were attacked at their home by U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Estabon Eugene, the estranged husband of Chang–Williams' niece. Eugene, who was searching for his wife, shot and killed Chang–Williams' husband, Kelvin Chang, and her son, Aldwin Chang. Chang–Williams was herself shot in the face, but survived. She now seeks damages from the United States for certain acts related to the attack.

The following facts are uncontroverted.

Nakeisha Rhea, Chang–Williams' niece, married Eugene in June 2002. (ECF No. 10–3, at 2).2 According to Chang–Williams, something was “not right about” Eugene from the very beginning, and at times he displayed an “unstable” and “violent” temper. ( Id. at 2). On multiple occasions, Eugene threatened Rhea. ( Id. at 4). Eugene's violent temperament led Rhea to seek refuge at Chang–Williams' home “on several occasions.” ( Id. at 4).

On November 1, 2002, Eugene's temper again boiled over. Prince George's County police arrived at Eugene and Rhea's home in Landover to find Rhea badly beaten,3 with blood covering the walls and floors. (ECF No. 10–2, at 2). When police reached the scene, Eugene fled; Prince George's County police later apprehended him after he crashed his car elsewhere in Landover. ( Id.).

Authorities arrested and charged Eugene with assault in the second degree and refusal to follow a lawful police order. ( Id. at 1). Although he was initially confined to the Prince George's County Detention Center, Eugene was released on bail on November 2. (ECF No. 10–4, at 1). Marine Corps Master Sergeant Bruce Witherspoon acted as Eugene's indemnitor and paid the $510 bail bondsman's fee. ( Id. at 4).

After his release, Marine Corps command ordered Eugene to undergo psychiatric screening. (ECF No. 10–5, at 1). Consequently, from November 4 through November 12, Eugene met occasionally with counselor and Marine Corps Master Sergeant John Charles. ( Id.). Records indicate that Eugene acted inconsistently during these sessions. On the one hand, he denied having “homicidal or suicidal intent” and expressed a willingness to change. ( Id. at 1–4). On the other hand, Charles noted that Eugene's “thought processes ... did not appear logical, as he seemed to be focusing more on why his spouse thought and acted in a certain manner rather than on obviously wanting to take responsibility for his previous actions.” ( Id. at 1). Eugene also told Charles that he felt “extremely upset because of threats by various members of his wife's family” and believed that there was “no light at the end of the tunnel.” ( Id. at 2, 3).4 Just eight hours before Eugene attacked Chang–Williams and her family, Charles briefly talked with Eugene, who “appeared to be doing fine.” ( Id. at 4).

On November 5, 2002, four days after Eugene's initial arrest, Marine Corps command issued a “Military Protection Order.” ( Id.). The order instructed Eugene to stay at least 100 feet away from Rhea, her residence, or her work place, and barred him from having any unauthorized contact with her. ( Id. at 1). The military order was to remain in effect for one month. ( Id. at 2).

The next day, Rhea petitioned the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County for a protective order. (ECF No. 10–8). Rhea sought protection for herself and several family members, including Chang–Williams. ( Id. at 5). The court entered a temporary protective order on November 6, which forbade Eugene from contacting Rhea and instructed him to “stay away” from several temporary residences, including Chang–Williams' residence in Capitol Heights, Maryland. (ECF No. 10–9). The state order was in force until November 13. ( Id.).

On November 7, 2002, Eugene rented a car in Virginia. (ECF No. 10–10). He also purchased a 9mm Ruger handgun. A few days later, on November 12, Eugene drove the rental car to Chang–Williams' house in Capitol Heights and hid outside. (ECF Nos. 10–3, at 12; 10–11, at 2). When Chang–Williams' son Aldwin returned home, Eugene revealed himself, brandished the pistol, and forced his way into the house. (ECF Nos. 10–3, at 12; 10–11, at 2). Aldwin escaped to a neighbor's house to call the police, but Eugene found Chang–Williams sitting in the front room of the home. (ECF Nos. 10–3, at 12; 10–11, at 2). He threatened her with the pistol and demanded to know where Rhea was; Chang–Williams told him Rhea was not there. (ECF No. 10–3, at 12). In response, Eugene shot Chang–Williams in her face and hand, leaving her bleeding and unconscious on the floor. (ECF No. 10–3, at 12–13). Eugene then went upstairs, where he found Chang–Williams' husband Kelvin asleep in his bed. ( Id. at 12). Eugene shot and killed him. ( Id.) Hearing the shots, Aldwin ran back towards the house from the neighbor's home. (ECF Nos. 10–3, at 13; 10–11, at 2). When Aldwin encountered Eugene in the driveway, Eugene killed him, too. ( Id.).

Eugene left Chang–Williams' house and drove to the home of another of Rhea's family members, Ursula Charley, in Mitchellville. (ECF No. 10–11, at 2). Once there, he attempted to break into the house, but fled the scene when the residents inside started screaming. ( Id.). Police eventually spotted Eugene in his rental car and a chase ensued. ( Id.). The chase ended when Eugene crashed his car on the Capital Beltway and then turned the gun on himself. ( Id.). Eugene died on November 15. ( Id.).

The parties' accounts differ on one important fact: the parties dispute whether the Marine Corps offered any specific assurances of protection before the shooting to Rhea's family, including Chang–Williams, her husband, and her son.

According to Chang–Williams, Captain James Richards and “Gunnery Sergeant Holden” visited Charley's home on November 4. (ECF Nos. 12–3, at 1; 15–2, at 2). Nakeisha Rhea, Carolyn Rhea, and Shelita Simmons were present. (ECF No. 12–3, at 1). Nakeisha told the Marines about the incident on November 1 and told them she was afraid her husband would return for her. The family members also told the Marines that they were afraid Eugene would look for Nakeisha at Chang–Williams' home,5 and that Chang–Williams' home was in fact “the place Sergeant Eugene would go to first.” ( Id.). They further expressed fears that Eugene would hurt them. ( Id.). The two Marines, however, assured the family that they would protect “all of [them].” (ECF No. 12–3, at 2; see also ECF No. 15–2, at 2). In particular, the family was told that Eugene would not be allowed to return to his house, would be confined to the base, and would not be free to leave the base without an escort. (ECF Nos. 12–3, at 2; 12–2, at 1; 15–1, at 2). Chang–Williams learned of the promise through Charley. (ECF No. 12–3, at 3).

The Government submits a declaration from Richards. (ECF No. 14–1). In the declaration, Richards recalls that he and a Marine Master Sergeant visited Nakeisha at the home where she was staying. ( Id. at 2). He does not remember the entire visit. ( Id.). Nor does “recall guaranteeing the safety of the victim's family members.” ( Id.). He remembers that Eugene was placed on “restriction by command,” but not any “24/7” suicide watch. ( Id.). He also states that he “did not place any Marines outside any dwellings.” ( Id.).

B. Procedural Background

Chang–Williams and her two daughters, DeLisia Carpenter and Vinele Chang, filed an administrative claim for wrongful death and injury with the Naval Legal Service Office on November 12, 2004 for just under $2.7 million. (ECF No. 10–12). The “shootings and murders committed by Marine Corps Sgt. Est [a]bon Eugene” formed the basis of the claims. ( Id. at 1). Almost five years later, on September 29, 2009, the Department of the Navy denied the claims in their entirety. (ECF No. 10–13, at 1). The denial letter stated three bases: (1) the waiver of sovereign immunity found in the FTCA “excludes any claim arising out of assault and battery, including homicide”; (2) Eugene was not acting within the scope of his employment during the relevant events; and (3) federal officials had no duty to protect Chang–Williams' family and could not have foreseen the murders. ( Id. at 1–2).

On March 30, 2010, Chang–Williams filed a pro se...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • In re Complaint of Ingram Barge Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 13 Julio 2016
    ... ... See Chang Williams v. Dep't of the Navy , 766 F.Supp.2d 604, 618 (D.Md.2011) ("Thus, the real issue in this case is not whether the ... a discretionary function when they disregarded their own specific assurances to ChangWilliams and her family"); Wilburn , 616 Fed.Appx. at 861 ("But a direct representation by the government ... ...
  • Zinner v. Olenych
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 4 Junio 2015
    ... ... v. Bereskin & Parr, 790 F.Supp.2d 435, 446 (E.D.Va.2011) (quoting ChangWilliams v. Dep't of the Navy, 766 F.Supp.2d 604, 620 n. 16 (D.Md.2011) ); cf. SuarezValenzuela v ... ...
  • Chang-Williams v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 15 Agosto 2013
    ... ... ( Id. at 1). Almost five years later, on September 29, 2009, the Department of the Navy denied the claims. (ECF No. 66–31, at 1–2). The denial letter stated that “[i]f you do not ... ...
  • Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 2 Mayo 2019
    ... ... Dep't of the Navy , 766 F.Supp.2d 604, 620 n.16 (D. Md. 2011) ("Typically, courts will not consider an argument ... ...
  • 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