Coleman v. City of Wilmington
| Docket Number | Civil Action 23-425-MAK |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | FRAY COLEMAN v. CITY OF WILMINGTON |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
A Black Wilmington police officer claims she left her employment as a police officer earlier this year because of a culture of race discrimination in the Wilmington Police Department created by an inspector. She does not sue her employer under federal or state employment law for discrimination in employment. She instead sues the City employer claiming a police inspector is the “de facto” policymaker who creates and promotes race discrimination and later directed issuance of a search warrant approved by a judge for her cell phone. She also admits the Chief of Police makes the final decisions. We issued extensive guidance when dismissing her first attempt at alleging civil rights liability upon the City. We afforded her a second opportunity to plead how the identified inspector could be the final decisionmaker necessary to impose municipal civil rights liability upon the City. Her second attempt to plead the City violated the civil rights laws based on an inspector's racial animus again does not state a civil rights municipal liability claim. She also again did not plead a basis for challenging the search warrant for her phone as approved by a judge. We dismiss her amended Complaint with prejudice.
Fray Coleman worked for the City of Wilmington Police Department as a police officer beginning in June 1999. She sues the City for violating her civil rights through an internal police investigation she believes is motivated by a police inspector's race discrimination against Black officers.
Chief Robert Tracy served as the Wilmington Chief of Police during Ms. Coleman's tenure.[1] Inspector Charles Emory ran the Criminal Investigations Division.[2] But Inspector Cecelia Ashe served as the “de facto final decision-maker” for the Wilmington Police Department even though she did not run the Criminal Investigations Division during the investigation of Ms. Coleman.[3] Inspector Ashe possessed “final unreviewable authority concerning personnel and disciplinary decisions” and implemented a policy of race discrimination in the Wilmington Police Department.[4] Inspector Ashe shielded Chief Tracy from the investigation of Ms. Coleman and “controlled the flow of information to Chief Tracy.”[5]Inspector Ashe approved the investigation of Ms. Coleman because of the Wilmington Police Department's “policy, practice and/or custom of race discrimination.”[6]
The Wilmington Police Department interviews Ms. Coleman in 2007 and 2008.
Ms. Coleman's claims arise from a 2022 investigation into murders over fifteen years ago.
Police officers first interviewed Ms. Coleman in 2007 related to the then-recent murder of her daughter's biological father's friend.[7] Ms. Coleman then told the police officers it would not surprise her if someone killed a murder suspect named Ramadan because of Ramadan's connection to the murder.[8] Ms. Coleman believed someone would murder Ramadan because of Ms. Coleman's knowledge of the “law of the streets” requiring a retribution killing.[9] Ms. Coleman did not know someone would murder Ramadan.[10]
Someone later murdered Ramadan in February 2008.[11] City detectives then questioned Ms. Coleman about Ramadan's murder in early 2008.[12] Ms. Coleman told the detectives she had no information about Ramadan's murder.[13]
The City renewed its investigation in 2022 leading to a search warrant for Ms. Coleman's phone.
The City renewed looking into these cold murder cases in 2022. It hired a retired state trooper to twice interview Ms. Coleman about the 2008 Ramadan murder contravening the Wilmington Police Department's Standard Operating Procedure and Delaware law.[14] The state trooper did not advise Ms. Coleman of her Miranda rights before either interview.[15] The state trooper did not advise Ms. Coleman she could leave during either interview.[16]
The state trooper told Ms. Coleman she had an inconsistent recollection of the murder after the second interview.[17] Inspector Ashe decided to ask the Delaware Department of Justice to seek a search warrant.[18] Inspector Ashe authorized the state trooper to prepare a search warrant for Ms. Coleman's cell phone.[19] The search warrant covered the time between Ms. Coleman's first and second interviews in 2022.[20] The state trooper used the improperly obtained information from his interviews with Ms. Coleman to apply for a search warrant to search Ms. Coleman's cell phone on December 7, 2022.[21] Judge LeGrow found probable cause necessary to approve the warrant.[22]
A Delaware Department of Justice employee executed the search warrant for Ms. Coleman's cell phone on December 8, 2022.[23] The City thereafter placed her on Administrative Duty and prevented her from leaving the police building.[24] Wilmington police officers later discussed Ms. Coleman's personal information and pictures on her cell phone created outside the warrant's date range.[25]
The City constructively discharged her on January 3, 2023 after an internal investigation.[26]
Ms. Coleman sued the City, its Office of Public Safety, and the Wilmington Police.
Ms. Coleman sued the City, its Office of Public Safety, and its Police Department under the civil rights laws arising from her January 3, 2023 discharge.[27] Ms. Coleman alleged the City violated federal civil rights law confirmed under section 1981 by treating Ms. Coleman and other Black officers differently than white officers in the terms of their employment. She alleged the Police Department fired her because the City, Office of Public Safety, and the Police Department engage in a policy of racial discrimination against Black officers.[28] Ms. Coleman also alleged the City violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under section 1983 by executing on a racially motivated search warrant.
We dismissed Ms. Coleman's claims against the Office of Public Safety and the Wilmington Police Department with prejudice because the Office of Public Safety and the Wilmington Police Department are administrative arms of the City and cannot be sued.[29] We dismissed Ms. Coleman's section 1981 claim against the City with prejudice because Congress did not create a private cause of action under section 1981 to sue state actors.[30] We dismissed Ms. Coleman's Fourth Amendment claim against the City without prejudice allowing Ms. Coleman leave to amend because she failed to plead deficiencies in the search warrant or the process of obtaining it.[31] We dismissed Ms. Coleman's Fourteenth Amendment claim against the City without prejudice allowing Ms. Coleman leave to amend because she failed to plead Inspector Ashe is the final policymaker for the Wilmington Police Department.[32]
Ms. Coleman timely amended a portion of her allegations to sue the City alone for the same two civil rights claims.[33] She does not bring an employee-based termination claim under federal law (i.e. Title VII) or state employment law.[34] She instead looks to the federal civil rights law codified by Congress in section 1983. She again alleges the City violated her “federal constitutional and statutory right” to be free from a “municipal policy, practice and/or custom of racial discrimination against Black police officers.”[35] Ms. Coleman alleges Inspector Ashe created this policy of race discrimination as the Police Department's “de facto final decisionmaker” with “final unreviewable authority.”[36] Ms. Coleman also alleges the City violated her Fourth Amendment rights when the state trooper used information from his “illegal and improper interviews” of Ms. Coleman and therefore “knowingly and deliberately, and with a reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements that created a falsehood” to obtain a search warrant for Ms. Coleman's phone.[37]
The City moves to dismiss Ms. Coleman's section 1983 race discrimination claim and her section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim.[38] The City argues Ms. Coleman's section 1983 race discrimination claim fails because, among other reasons, Ms. Coleman fails to plead Inspector Ashe is a final policymaker necessary to attach liability for Ms. Coleman's constructive discharge.[39] The City argues Ms. Coleman's section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim fails because Ms. Coleman does not allege a false statement the state trooper made in obtaining the search warrant and the state trooper's alleged use of Ms. Coleman's statements without giving a Miranda warning is not actionable.[40]
We dismiss Ms. Coleman's section 1983 race discrimination claim as Ms. Coleman again fails to plead facts allowing us to plausibly infer Inspector Ashe is the final policymaker for the Wilmington Police Department. We dismiss Ms. Coleman's section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim because Ms. Coleman again fails to plead the state trooper made false statements to obtain the search warrant or otherwise challenge the warrant's veracity.
Ms Coleman claims the Wilmington Police Department harmed her by causing her to leave her job through its “policy, custom and/or practice” of race discrimination against Black police officers.[41] Ms. Coleman claims Inspector Ashe served as the “de facto final decisionmaker” at the Wilmington Police Department.[42] Ms. Coleman alleges Inspector Ashe had “final unreviewable authority” over Police Department personnel and disciplinary decisions.[43] Ms. Coleman claims Inspector Ashe “implemented” the policy, practice and custom of race discrimination within the Wilmington Police Department.[44] Ms. Coleman explains Inspector Ashe “controlled the flow of...
To continue reading
Request your trial