Cook v. Howard
| Decision Date | 24 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-1601,11-1601 |
| Parties | JOHN COOK, III, Individually, and as Administrator for the Estate of John Gideon Cook, IV; PATRICIA COOK; LINDA HAMMOND, parent and Guardian Ad Litem for Minor J.A.C.; DENISE BROWN, parent and Guardian Ad Litem for Minor J.C., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. RAYMOND A. HOWARD, police officer (ID#C646); DWAYNE GREEN, police officer (ID#G716); BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT; FREDERICK H. BEALEFELD, Commissioner, Baltimore City Police Department; JOHN BEVILAQUA, Colonel, Defendants - Appellees, and CITY OF BALTIMORE; JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00332-JFM)
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Diaz wrote an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part.
ARGUED: Olugbenga Olatokumbo Abiona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. William Rowe Phelan, Jr., Glenn Todd Marrow, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: George A. Nilson, City Solicitor, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
John Cook, III, individually and as administrator of the estate of John Cook, IV ("Cook"), and various members of the Cook family (collectively "the Appellants"), appeal from the district court's judgment against them on their claims against the Baltimore City Police Department ("BCPD") and several BCPD officers.1 The Appellants alleged claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments arising from Cook's death. They also sought to recover damages under Maryland's wrongful death and survival statutes. The Appellants appeal numerous decisions of the district court that resulted in the adjudication of all of their claims in favor of the BCPD and the BCPD officers. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The light in which we review the facts varies based on the stage of the proceedings at which the claims were resolved. For claims dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage, we must accept as true the well-pled facts in the complaint, viewed in thelight most favorable to the plaintiff. Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503, 505 (4th Cir. 2011). For the claims resolved at the summary judgment stage, we review the entire record before us in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Merchant v. Bauer, 677 F.3d 656, 658 n.1 (4th Cir. 2012).
A straight-forward recitation of the Appellants' allegations is complicated by changes made to those allegations as the case proceeded. Those changes alter which defendant or third party is purported to have engaged in certain conduct. At times the allegations directly contradict each other. Far more troubling, the Appellants persist in asserting facts and conduct that lack any basis in the record or that are directly contradicted by undisputed evidence in the record developed during discovery. To say that the operative pleading (the amended complaint) and the opening brief are poorly drafted is to be generous. Consequently, we will initially provide only a brief overview of the factual allegations behind the Appellants' claims.
The allegations as pled are: On the afternoon of August 14, 2007, Cook, an African-American, came into proximity of two BCPD plain-clothed officers who were on patrol in a Baltimore neighborhood. As the officers approached Cook, they did not identify themselves, and Cook, "[a]fraid for his life," fled on foot. (J.A. 76.) The officers pursued him. During the courseof the foot pursuit and subsequently alleged events, additional BCPD officers responded to a request for assistance.
To evade the officers, Cook jumped over a chain-link fence and hung onto the other side. The fence runs above a highway, and the distance from the small concrete ledge at the base of the fence to the highway is approximately seventy feet. One or more BCPD officers is alleged to have shaken the fence with sufficient force to cause Cook to lose his grip. Cook fell first to the concrete ledge, which he hung from briefly before falling onto the highway. Cook survived the initial impact, but within moments of landing on the highway, a vehicle ran over him, and he died at the scene. After Cook's death, BCPD officers at the fence were alleged to have high fived, laughed, and referred to Cook using the "N" word. BCPD officers are then alleged to have conspired to cover up the circumstances surrounding Cook's death by, among other things, conducting an inadequate investigation and filing false reports related to his death.
In February 2010, the Appellants filed this action in the District Court for the District of Maryland. The amended complaint (which is the operative pleading for all issues on appeal) was brought against the BCPD; BCPD CommissionerFrederick Bealefeld, the highest ranking officer in the BCPD; BCPD Colonel John Bevilaqua, the Chief of the BCPD detective division; BCPD Officers Raymond A. Howard and Dwayne Green; and "Defendants John Does 1-100."2 (J.A. 70-71.)
The amended complaint alleged five counts: Counts I and III set forth claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against the BCPD, Commissioner Bealefeld, and Colonel Bevilaqua for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments with respect to the events surrounding Cook's death. The amended complaint asserted that the BCPD was liable for the conduct of its officers and that its customs, practices, and policies encouraged BCPD officers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens, including Cook. Commissioner Bealefeld and Colonel Bevilaqua (collectively the "supervisory officials") were sued under a theory of supervisory liability for the events surrounding Cook's death. Although the amended complaint is unwieldy and difficult to parse, it also appears that these defendants, or at least Colonel Bevilaqua, were alleged to have violated Cook's constitutional rights by conspiring to cover up the events surrounding his death.
The amended complaint identified Officers Howard and Green as the BCPD officers who initially approached Cook; it alleged that they engaged in an "unlawful" pursuit of Cook and then both shook the fence such that Cook fell from it. The amended complaint also alleged that Officer Howard did "most of the aggressive hitting of the fence that [Cook] hung on to," engaged in "high-fiving and laughing" following Cook's death, used racial epithets and inflammatory language, and engaged in a physical altercation with Officer Howard Bradley because of the epithets. Lastly, it asserted Officer Howard "filed a false incident report and covered up the actual events at the scene," and participated in a conspiracy to cover up the events surrounding Cook's death. (J.A. 77-78.) Based on these factual allegations against Officers Howard and Green, Count II set forth claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Counts IV and V alleged survival and wrongful death actions under Maryland state law.3
The BCPD, Commissioner Bealefeld, and Colonel Bevilaqua moved to dismiss the claims against them (Counts I and III) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the amended complaint did "not allege[] sufficient facts to establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)," and that the "conclusory allegations" were "clearly . . . insufficient under" the standards set by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Lastly, it noted that the "only facts relating to the alleged conspiracy pertain to events that occurred after [Cook] was killed and therefore cannot, as a matter of causation, provide a basis for" the Appellants' claims. (J.A. 11.) The district court's grant of the 12(b)(6) motion disposed of all counts alleged against the BCPD and supervisory officers.
In the intervening months the Appellants and Officers Howard and Green engaged in discovery related to Counts II, IV, and V. Relevant to this appeal, the district court granted the BCPD's motion to quash a request for production of documents that the Appellants had served after the BCPD had been dismissed from the case. The court's order granted the motion based onits conclusion that "the documents sought by [the Appellants] are irrelevant to the claims that are now pending." (J.A. 18.)
After the scheduling order's deadline for making a motion to amend the complaint had passed, the Appellants moved to amend the pleadings in order to "substitute the names of [BCPD Officers] Jared Fried and Angela Choi for defendants John Does 1 and 2." (J.A. 19.) The district court denied the motion, concluding that the Appellants had not demonstrated good cause for the amendment.
Officers Howard and Green then moved for summary judgment on each claim against them. Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, the district court granted the motion. The court recognized remaining factual disputes in the record, but determined that none were "material" to resolving the issues in the case. Reviewing the §§ 1983 and 1985 claims against Officers Howard and Green, the district court concluded that the facts did not support the Appellants' contention that they had violated either Cook's or the Appellants' Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court also held that the state law claims were barred because the Appellants failed to comply with the notice requirements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odom v. Southcarolina
...Rule 8(a) jurisprudence, including [Bell Atlantic v.] Twombly, [550 U.S. 544 (2007)] and Iqbal.'") (quoting from Cook v. Howard, 484 F. App'x 805, 810 (4th Cir. 2012)). It is true that Plaintiff asks this court to "reopen" a Fourth Circuit appeal ("U.S.C.A. # 15-1701") perhaps—though this i......
-
Carter v. Hughes, 9:18-cv-3331-DCN
...the undue burden standard encompasses situations where the subpoena seeks information irrelevant to the case. Cook v. Howard, 484 F. App'x 805, 812 n.7 (4th Cir. 2012). The scope of discovery under a subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Id. at 812. Thu......