Coley v. Bowser
| Decision Date | 22 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 20-2182 (CKK) |
| Parties | DIONTE COLEY, Plaintiff v. MURIEL BOWSER, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Dionte Coley ("Plaintiff") has filed a civil action against Muriel Bowser, Peter Newsham, Karl Racine, Christopher Geldart, Laquandra Nesbitt, and Wayne Turnage (collectively, the "Moving Defendants"), as well as "Four Unidentified Metropolitan Police Officers" and "At Least Three Unidentified Department of Public Works Employees," (collectively, with the "Moving Defendants," "Defendants"). Plaintiff's complaint asserts five counts against each Defendant, in both their individual and official capacities. In Counts I and II, Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, respectively. In Counts III, IV, and V, Plaintiff asserts common law claims against each Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and civil conspiracy.
Now pending before the Court, is the Motion to Dismiss of the Moving Defendants. Upon consideration of the briefing, the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole,1 the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the Moving Defendants' Motion. Specifically, theCourt will GRANT the Moving Defendants' Motion, to the extent it seeks dismissal of Counts I through V against the Moving Defendants in their individual capacities. The Court, however, will DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Moving Defendants' Motion, to the extent it seeks dismissal of Counts I through V against the Moving Defendants in their official capacities.
The Court sets forth the relevant factual background below. At the pleading stage, the Court's factual background derives from the factual allegations in Plaintiff's complaint. See Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 314-15 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The Court, however, does not adopt any of Plaintiff's factual allegations or make any factual findings at this stage of the proceedings.
Following the tragic death of George Floyd in May 2020, "Black Lives Matter Plaza" in Washington, D.C. became a focal point for national protest movements and political tension. See Compl. ¶¶ 27-36. Located across from Lafayette Square on 16th Street, between K Street and H Street, Northwest, the plaza developed into a bustling enclave filled with protesters participating in racial justice demonstrations. See id. ¶¶ 27, 40. The plaza also contained numerous homeless individuals, tents and personal property in the middle of the street, medic stations, and even a pop-up restaurant serving the nearby population. Id. By June 2020, protesters and demonstrations within the plaza garnered the close attention of then-President Donald Trump. See id. ¶¶ 30-32. In light of these demonstrations, then-President Trump activated federal law enforcement officers and allegedly threatened to assume control of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia ("MPD") to address emerging public safety concerns in the area. See id. ¶¶ 30-35.
On June 22, 2020, the events surrounding Black Lives Matter Plaza reached a crescendo. Local protesters entered Lafayette Square and attempted to remove a statue of Andrew Jackson, id. ¶ 41, and, later that night, attempted to establish an "autonomous zone" around the historic St. John's Church. See id. ¶ 42. In response, then-President Trump proposed a forceful intervention by federal law enforcement officers to impede the protesters' activities. See id. ¶¶ 45-47. In turn, District of Columbia officials became concerned about the destabilizing effects of an autonomous zone in Black Lives Matter Plaza, as well as then-President Trump's related proposal to federalize local law enforcement. See id. ¶ 48. To address these potential sources of unrest, Mayor Muriel Bowser promptly "convened a meeting" on June 22nd "with her top administration officials to determine the appropriate steps to resolve the [autonomous zone] situation and appease the White House." Id. Plaintiff alleges that either the Moving Defendants themselves or "representatives" from their respective agencies attended this meeting and "offered their views on the best ways to respond to Presidential pressure" over the protests. Id. ¶ 49. Plaintiff, however, does not make any concrete allegations about who specifically attended the June 22nd meeting or what any particular individual said or did during the meeting. See id. ¶¶ 48-50. Plaintiff does allege, however, that Mayor Bowser ultimately "decided to order the removal of the protesters" to prevent the creation of an autonomous zone and to preserve public safety. Id. ¶ 50. The District of Columbia declared the large enclaves of tents and personal property in the middle of the street within Black Lives Matter Plaza to be "encampments," which posed a threat to public safety and were subject to removal. See id. ¶¶ 53-55.
On June 23, 2020, District of Columbia officials carried out this encampment removal within Black Lives Matter Plaza. The first clearing occurred at approximately 1:00 PM ET, focusing on the area of the plaza closer to H Street, Northwest. See id. ¶¶ 58-63. A second clearingthen occurred closer to K Street, Northwest, around 3:00 PM ET that afternoon. See id. ¶ 64. To clear these encampments, MPD officers removed protesters from the plaza and gathered abandoned property from the street and sidewalks for confiscation. See id. ¶¶ 51, 82. Then, MPD officers and officials from the Department of Public Works ("DPW") deposited the collected property into garbage trucks for transport and disposal at a trash dump in Virginia. See id. ¶ 84.
Plaintiff alleges that the District of Columbia has authority to clear encampments to promote public safety, but in doing so, it traditionally follows certain procedures, which provide for advance notice and the preservation of valuable property. See id. ¶¶ 56-57. Plaintiff alleges, however, that the District of Columbia did not follow these procedures when carrying out the June 23, 2020 encampment clearings in Black Lives Matter Plaza. Id. ¶ 57. For example, Plaintiff alleges that District of Columbia officials failed to post signs warning of the removal of property around the encampment site. See, e.g., ¶¶ 56, 60. Moreover, the District of Columbia allegedly failed to deploy intervention personnel into the encampment site to provide appropriate guidance to homeless individuals within the area. See id. Relatedly, the District of Columbia did not provide storage containers for the preservation of eligible property, see id. ¶ 57, nor did the District of Columbia provide individuals with information regarding how to retrieve their eligible property after the removal, see id. ¶ 60. Instead, the June 23, 2020 removal operation at Black Lives Matter Plaza allegedly permitted MPD officers to throw "all of the personal property" seized "into the trash." Id. ¶ 59. Nonetheless, the District of Columbia's encampment protocol makes clear that "[d]ue to safety and other concerns . . . [o]nly eligible property in plain sight, without manipulation, will be stored." Encampment Protocol at 8.2 The encampment protocol further states that it "doesnot create any enforceable third party rights on behalf of any member of the public or any individual whose property may be the subject of this protocol." Id. at 1.
Plaintiff is a professional cook, residing in Washington, D.C. See Compl. ¶ 4. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced restaurants in Washington, D.C. to close, reducing Plaintiff's immediate employment prospects. See id. ¶ 65. Accordingly, Plaintiff decided to place his belongings in a local storage unit and temporarily move in with family in Raleigh, North Carolina, until Washington, D.C. restaurants re-opened. See id. After spending several months in North Carolina, Plaintiff learned that Washington, D.C., restaurants would re-open on June 22, 2020. See id. ¶ 66. With renewed hopes of finding work, Plaintiff promptly planned his return to Washington, D.C. See id. Plaintiff purchased a bus ticket for his return trip and arranged for an apartment rental in the city. See id. To transport his personal effects, Plaintiff packed a single black backpack with his cell phone, three sets of clothes, his social security card, his birth certificate, his financial documents and certifications, $800 in cash to pay for rent, and the key for his Washington, D.C. storage locker. Id. ¶ 5.
Plaintiff arrived back in Washington, D.C. on the evening of June 22, 2020. See id. ¶ 67. That night, Plaintiff stayed with a close friend who lived near the intersection of 11th Street and P Street, Northwest. See id. The following day Plaintiff departed from his friend's residence and proceeded towards Northeast, where he intended to reconnect with family and friends in the area. Id. ¶ 68. Hoping to catch an eastbound bus to his destination, Plaintiff made his way to the bus stop at the corner of 16th Street and K Street, Northwest. See id. ¶ 72. As he neared the bus stop,around approximately 2:30 PM ET, Plaintiff noticed "a large group of people in the area, some milling about and some sitting in tents." Id. "It was only when [Plaintiff] got closer to the bus stop" that he realized he was in "Black Lives Matter Plaza." Id. Plaintiff, who had just arrived in Washington, D.C. the night before, was unaware of the June 22nd events regarding the Andrew Jackson statue or the creation of an autonomous zone outside of St. John's Church. See id. ¶ 73. Plaintiff was also unaware that District of Columbia officials had cleared an "encampment" near H Street, earlier that afternoon. See id. Plaintiff had not passed any signs or received any warnings informing him that the area around Black Lives Matter Plaza had been designated as an encampment or that a related...
To continue reading
Request your trial