Cruz-Roldan v. Nagurka
| Decision Date | 04 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-1308 (RJL) |
| Citation | 547 F.Supp.3d 27 |
| Parties | Claudia Patricia CRUZ-ROLDAN, Plaintiff, v. Greg NAGURKA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Geoffrey D. Allen, Law Office of Geoffrey D. Allen, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Philip Alexander Medley, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
[Dkt. #34]
RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge Plaintiff, Claudia Patricia Cruz-Roldan ("plaintiff" or "Cruz-Roldan"), a childcare provider at a local day care facility, was the subject of a criminal investigation into child abuse. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia ("the Government") charged her in District of Columbia Superior Court with second degree cruelty to children and simple assault, but ended up voluntarily dismissing the charges. Cruz-Roldan maintains her innocence and claims the investigation and criminal charges went too far. She brought this action against Greg Nagurka ("defendant" or "Nagurka"), who was the lead detective on the case for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. She alleged several tort claims, brought under D.C. law, as well as several constitutional violations, brought under § 1983. Am. Compl. [Dkt. #5]. After I considered and dismissed some of her claims, see [Dkt. #20], the parties moved to discovery on those that remained: common law negligence (Count I), common law battery (Count II), common law intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III), common law false arrest (Count IV), and Fourth Amendment false arrest (Count VI).1
Nagurka now moves for summary judgment on all Cruz-Roldan's remaining claims. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def's Mot.") [Dkt. #34]. On the false arrest claims, he argues that he had probable cause to arrest Cruz-Roldan for second degree child abuse and is entitled to qualified immunity. With regard to battery, Nagurka contends that a lawful arrest made without excessive force cannot give rise to battery. As for the negligence claim, he insists that plaintiff failed to establish a standard of care that he breached and that, in any event, he is protected by the public duty doctrine. Finally, Nagurka argues that plaintiff lacks sufficient facts to support intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons described herein, Nagurka's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED , in part. The motion is DENIED, in part, as to negligence. As this ruling disposes of all the federal questions in this case, and as this case was removed from D.C. Superior Court based on federal question jurisdiction, I REMAND the case back to the D.C. Superior Court for further proceedings.
Before explaining my reasons for granting summary judgment, a little background is necessary. Note, however, that I have included here only those facts—undisputed or indisputable—that are material to deciding this motion.2
On May 18, 2015, J.S., a three-month-old boy, was brought to Kiddie Academy, a child care facility in the District of Columbia, where he was cared for by Cruz-Roldan, Mayra Lopez ("Lopez"), and Mary Washington. Pl.’s Opp'n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.’s Opp'n") 3 ¶ 1; Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp'n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.’s Reply") 1 ¶ 1. When J.S.’s mother picked J.S. up later that day, she noticed marks on his body that had not been there when she dropped him off. Pl.’s Opp'n 3 ¶ 3; Def.’s Reply 2 ¶ 3. J.S.’s mother called Kiddie Academy that night to complain, and Kiddie Academy's owner, Milena Mattingly ("Mattingly"), reviewed footage of J.S.’s classroom from earlier that day. Dep. of Milena Mattingly, Pl.’s Opp'n Ex. 1 ("Mattingly Dep.") [Dkt. #35-1] 14:1, 15:17; Pl.’s Opp'n 4 ¶ 5; Def.’s Reply 2 ¶ 5.
The following day, J.S.’s mother brought J.S. to Children's National Medical Center ("Children's"). Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Statement of Material Facts ("Def.’s Mot. SOMF") 3 ¶ 2; June 5, 2015 Report of Investigation ("June 5 Report"), Def.’s Mot. Ex. 1 [Dkt. #34-1] at 3.3 Dr. Allison Jackson ("Dr. Jackson"), a physician at Children's, examined J.S. Pl.’s Opp'n 4 ¶ 7; Def.’s Reply 2 ¶ 7. Dr. Jackson took photographs of what she considered to be abnormalities on his body. Id. Ultimately, a mandated reporter contacted the Child and Family Services Agency and reported suspected abuse. Def.’s Mot. SOMF 3 ¶ 1; June 5 Report at 3.
Nagurka was assigned to investigate the suspected abuse. Pl.’s Opp'n 3–4 ¶ 4; Def.’s Reply 2 ¶ 4. On May 20, 2015, he interviewed the mandated reporter, who told him about the hospital visit. Def.’s Mot. SOMF 3 ¶ 2; June 5 Report at 3. The next day, Nagurka interviewed J.S.’s mother, who provided a timeline of her discovery of J.S.’s bruises: First, J.S. had been under his parents’ supervision during the weekend of May 16–17, 2015. Def.’s Mot. SOMF 4 ¶ 5; June 5 Report at 4. Second, on the morning of May 18, 2015, J.S.’s mother changed his clothes at approximate 8:00 a.m. and saw no bruising. Id. Third, J.S.’s mother dropped him off at Kiddie Academy at approximately 9:00 a.m. and picked him up at approximately 4:45 p.m. Id. Fourth, J.S.’s mother undressed him at approximately 6:00 p.m. that evening and discovered the bruises. Id.
On May 22, 2015, Dr. Jackson completed a Medico-Legal Form for Abused Children and provided it to Nagurka. Def.’s Mot. SOMF 4 ¶ 6; June 5 Report at 4; Def.’s Mot. Ex. 2 [Dkt. #34-2] at 2. On the form, she wrote the following:
[J.S.] has at least 12 discrete bruises to his back, left arm and both thighs which are primarily linear or curvilinear in shape. Such bruises would require blunt or compressive force from an object(s) with a linear/curvilinear component. Bruising in any infant this young is concerning for inflicted trauma. Developmentally, there is no reasonable activity that would result in such bruises. He has no medical history or prior signs/symptoms suggestive of an underlying bleeding disorder. The findings are most consistent with inflicted trauma.
Def.’s Mot. Ex. 2.
Nagurka traveled to Kiddie Academy on May 21, 2015 and spoke with Mattingly, who provided him with video footage of J.S.’s classroom from May 18, 2015.4 Def.’s Mot. SOMF 3 ¶ 3; June 5 Report at 3. On May 27–28, 2015, Nagurka reviewed all eight hours of Kiddie Academy video footage depicting the area where J.S. was located on May 18, 2015. Pl.’s Opp'n 4 ¶ 8; Def.’s Reply 3 ¶ 8; Def.’s Mot. SOMF 2 ¶ 8; June 5 Report at 4. He watched the complete footage at normal speed and with full audio. Def.’s Mot. SOMF 2 ¶ 9.
At two points, the video depicts Cruz-Roldan patting J.S.’s back with sufficient force that it is audible on camera. Pl.’s Opp'n 4 ¶¶ 8–9; Def.’s Reply 3 ¶¶ 8–9; Surveillance Video of May 18, 2015 ("May 18 Video"), Def.’s Mot. Ex. 4, 01:31:43–32:00, 02:07:30–43.5 During both sets of patting, a baby can be heard crying loudly. May 18 Video 01:31:43–32:00, 02:07:30–43. Cruz-Roldan stated at her deposition that the first clip depicted J.S. crying. See Cruz-Roldan Dep., Pl.’s Opp'n Ex. 5 [Dkt. #35-5] 44:1–3. In an investigative report dated a week later, Nagurka described the patting as "loud and excessive." Def.’s Mot. SOMF 5 ¶ 10; June 5 Report at 3. In her later deposition, Cruz-Roldan explained that the video depicted her burping J.S. Pl.’s Opp'n 4 ¶ 9; Def.’s Reply 3 ¶ 9.
Nagurka sent a clip to Dr. Jackson for review of the video depicting the first time Cruz-Roldan patted J.S. Pl.’s Opp'n 5 ¶ 11; Def.’s Reply 3–4 ¶ 11.6 On June 1, 2015, Dr. Jackson emailed Nagurka after reviewing the video clip. Pl.’s Opp'n 5 ¶ 12; Def.’s Reply 4 ¶ 12. In her email, she stated that "while [Cruz-Roldan] is patting [J.S.] quite vigorously," Dr. Jackson "d[id not] think th[e] clip show[ed] enough to explain his injuries." Id. In addition to the contact he observed on the video, Nagurka observed a blind spot near the classroom's changing station. Def.’s Mot. SOMF 5 ¶ 11.
Cruz-Roldan's co-worker Lopez, who was working in the United States on a "green" card, sat for several interviews. Pl.’s Opp'n 3 ¶ 2; Def.’s Reply 2 ¶ 2. First, on May 21, 2015, Nakurka interviewed Lopez. Pl.’s Opp'n 4 ¶ 6; Def.’s Reply 2 ¶ 6. She denied harming J.S. or witnessing anyone else harming him. Id. Second, on June 1, 2015, social worker Jacqueline Simpkins interviewed Lopez with Nagurka present. Pl.’s Opp'n 5 ¶ 13; Def.’s Reply 4 ¶ 13. During this interview, Lopez stated that she had not seen any pinching or other type of improper conduct by Cruz-Roldan. Pl.’s Opp'n 5 ¶ 14; Def.’s Reply 4 ¶ 14. Third, on June 3, 2015, Nagurka interviewed Lopez once more about whether she had seen Cruz-Roldan abusing J.S. or other children. Pl.’s Opp'n 5 ¶¶ 16–17; Def.’s Reply 4 ¶¶ 16–17. Another detective, Jenny Alvarenga, was also present. Pl.’s Excerpts of Tr. of Dep. of Greg B. Nagurka ("Pl.’s Nagurka Dep."), Pl.’s Opp'n Ex. 3 [Dkt. #35-3] at 52:18–53:7.
This third interview—and whether statements Lopez made implicating Cruz-Roldan were coerced—is the subject of the most serious dispute between the parties. Fortunately, the interview was videotaped. See Def.’s Mot. Ex. 5 ("Lopez Interview"). Before the interview began, Nagurka confirmed that the door to the interview room was unlocked, Lopez Interview 00:01:15–19, 00:03:56–57, that Lopez was not under arrest, and that she was free to leave at any time, id. 00:03:58–04:12. Gesturing to the (unlocked) shackles on the ground connected to the chair in which Lopez was sitting, Nagurka, "apologize[d] for the chair." Id. 00:01:30–33. He then pointed out the camera and explained that everything was being recorded. Id. 00:01:26–33. Nagurka also explained that Alvarenga was there to translate if Lopez wanted help understanding something or if she preferred to speak in Spanish. Id. 00:02:18–50. Lopez confirmed that she had come to the station for her interview voluntarily. Id. 00:02:00–09.
Several...
To continue reading
Request your trial