Griffin v. Salisbury Police Dep't
| Decision Date | 19 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB-20-2511 |
| Parties | TRAVIS GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiff Travis Griffin ("Plaintiff" or "Griffin") instituted this action on June 3, 2020 in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Maryland against Defendants Salisbury Police Department, Mayor and City Council of Salisbury, Joseph Doyle ("Officer Doyle"), and Garrett Ross ("Officer Ross"), individually and as police officers for Salisbury Police Department (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff asserts state law claims against the individual officer Defendants for assault (Count I), battery (Count II), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV), and violation of Maryland's Declaration of Rights (Count V). (Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.) In addition, Plaintiff asserts federal constitutional violations against Defendant Officer Ross in his official capacity (Count III), Defendants Salisbury Police Department and Mayor and City Council of Salisbury (Counts VI, VII, and VIII), and seeks indemnification against Defendants Salisbury Police Department and Mayor and City Council of Salisbury (Count IX1). (Id.) Based upon the federal claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, Defendants timely removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.)
Presently pending are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 3, 15.2) Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). As a preliminary matter, Defendants' original Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), based on Plaintiff's original and no-longer operative Complaint, shall be DENIED AS MOOT. In addition, for the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 3), construed as a Motion for Summary Judgment,3 shall be GRANTED. Specifically, Counts I, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendants on Counts II and V. Finally, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) shall be DENIED.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court "accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts in a complaint and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Wikimedia Found.v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015)). Plaintiff Travis Griffin4 brings this action based on a May 2017 traffic stop resulting in injury to his leg. On or about May 26, 2017,5 at approximately 9:55 p.m., Griffin was a passenger in a car in the area of Naylor and Brown Streets in Salisbury, Maryland. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 17; Doyle Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 3-2.) Defendant Officers Ross and Doyle were on patrol at that time in a marked Salisbury police cruiser in the same area, which was known for open air narcotics sales. (Id.; Ross Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No. 3-3.) Officer Doyle observed a blue Chevrolet Cruze fail to stop at a stop sign and advised Officer Ross of this observation. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 4; Ross Aff. ¶ 4; Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) Officer Doyle also observed that the vehicle did not have adequate rear registration plate illumination. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 4.)
The Officers attempted to effect a traffic stop on the vehicle by activating the police cruiser's emergency equipment. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 5; Ross Aff. ¶ 4; Am. Compl. ¶ 6.) The vehicle did not stop, instead running at least one stop sign, increasing its speed, swerving erratically, and driving the wrong day down a one-way street. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 5; Ross Aff. ¶ 5; Am. Compl. ¶ 7.) The vehicle eventually came to a stop when it crashed into a parked car, a chain link fence, and into the side of a residence. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 5; Ross Aff. ¶ 5; Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) Thedriver got out and fled on foot while the passenger, Plaintiff Griffin, also attempted to flee the scene. (Doyle Aff. ¶¶ 7-8; Ross Aff. ¶ 7; Am. Compl. ¶ 9.)
Upon Plaintiff's attempt to flee, Officer Ross pursued Plaintiff, grabbing Plaintiff's shirt and tackling him from behind. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 5; Ross Aff. ¶ 5; Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) Officer Ross did not strike or use any weapons on Plaintiff. (Ross Aff. ¶ 9.) Once Plaintiff was on the ground, Officer Ross observed Plaintiff quickly grab and hide underneath his body a cigarette box, which was later recovered containing suspected cocaine. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 8; Ross Aff. ¶ 8.) Officer Doyle then ran over to assist Officer Ross in handcuffing Plaintiff. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 10; Ross Aff. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff complained of a leg injury on the scene and the Officers waited with Plaintiff for the arrival of paramedics. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 10; Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff was first rushed to Peninsula Regional Medical Center and then immediately flown to University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges he suffered a "catastrophic break of his leg as he was tackled by Officer Ross." (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) Upon a later search of the vehicle, officers found an open container of alcohol under the seat where Plaintiff had been seated and a marijuana blunt in the vehicle's center console. (Doyle Aff. ¶ 9; Ross Aff. ¶ 11.) In addition, Plaintiff had three outstanding warrants for his arrest. (Id.)
More than three years after the incident, on June 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Maryland. (ECF No. 1-4.) Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment in the state court on August 5, 2020. (ECF No. 15.) When Plaintiff amended his Complaint to add federal claims, Defendants removed the case to this Court on August 31, 2020. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 17; Notice of Removal, ECF No.1.) Defendants also filed a new Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 3.) On September 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24.)
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. Typically, when deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court considers only the complaint and any attached documents "integral to the complaint." Sec'y of State for Defense v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). To the extent that grounds for dismissal are based solely on the contents of the Complaint, the Court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) if the complaint does not allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim is plausible when the facts pled allow "the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The Court must examine the complaint as a whole, consider the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994); Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005).
Rule 12(d) requires courts to treat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment where matters outside the pleadings are considered and not excluded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Before converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, courts must give the nonmoving party "a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Id. "Reasonable opportunity" has two requirements: (1) the nonmoving partymust have some indication that the court is treating the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a motion for summary judgment, and (2) the nonmoving party "must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for discovery" to obtain information essential to oppose the motion. Gay v. Wall, 761 F.2d 175, 177 (4th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Here, the notice requirement has been satisfied by the title of the Motions. To show that a reasonable opportunity for discovery has not been afforded, the nonmoving party must file an affidavit or declaration under Rule 56(d) explaining why "for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition," Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), or otherwise put the district court on notice of the reasons why summary judgment is premature. See Harrods, Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not filed a Rule 56(d) affidavit or otherwise requested discovery in this matter. Under these circumstances, the Court will construe Defendants' Motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment as to some counts.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court grants summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In assessing the motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with all justifiable inferences drawn in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 411 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The Court may rely only on facts supported in the record, not simply assertions in the pleadings. Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2003). The nonmoving party has the burden to show a genuine dispute on a material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A fact is"material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A dispute of material fact is only "ge...
To continue reading
Request your trial