Haymon v. Dist. of Columbia
| Decision Date | 27 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 21-886 (RDM) |
| Citation | 610 F.Supp.3d 101 |
| Parties | Guy HAYMON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
John F. Pressley, Jr., Law Office of John F. Pressley, Jr., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Rachel Beth Gale, Steven Nathan Rubenstein, Office of Attorney General/DC, Civil Litigation Division, Washington, DC, Margaret Ulle, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Under District of Columbia law, the Mayor may appoint special police officers ("SPOs") "in connection with the property of, or under the charge of, [any] corporation or individual," provided that the SPOs are "paid wholly by the corporation or person on whose account their appointments are made." D.C. Code § 5-129.02. The Mayor, in turn, has delegated that authority to the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD"). See Mayor's Order 2008-81, ¶ F.4 (June 5, 2008). Plaintiff Guy Haymon used to work as an SPO for Washington Field Protective Services, a private security agency in the District of Columbia. On May 19, 2019, Haymon was on duty at a Safeway in Southeast Washington, D.C., when a gunman opened fire in the parking lot. Haymon returned fire and the gunman fled the scene. No one was injured during the exchange of gunfire. That same day, the MPD investigated the incident and determined, among other things, that Haymon's SPO commission did not authorize him to carry a firearm while on duty. The MPD subsequently revoked Haymon's SPO commission, citing Haymon's "unlawful discharge of [a] firearm" as justification. The MPD never explained its decision to Haymon and never provided him an opportunity to dispute it. Without the commission, Haymon can no longer serve as an SPO, and he was terminated from his position with Washington Field Protective Services.
Haymon brings this action against Defendants the District of Columbia and Jeffrey McGunigal, an employee of the MPD's Security Officer's Management Branch ("SOMB"), which oversees the issuance and revocation of SPO commissions. Haymon alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by revoking his SPO commission without notice or an opportunity to dispute the revocation. He also asserts a common law claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Defendants, in response, move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 10.
For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ motion.
For purposes of resolving the pending motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the following factual allegations as true. See Hishon v. King & Spalding , 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984).
Haymon is a resident of the District of Columbia, where he previously worked as an SPO for Washington Field Protective Services. Dkt. 1-2 at 3–4 (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6); see also Dkt. 10 at 7–8. An SPO is a "privately employed" security officer who, pursuant to a commission issued by the Mayor, is vested with "the same power of arrest ... as a Metropolitan Police Officer." United States v. Lima , 424 A.2d 113, 119 (D.C. 1980) ; see also United States v. McDougald , 350 A.2d 375, 378 (D.C. 1976) (). Under D.C. law, no person shall be commissioned as an SPO unless he satisfies several eligibility and training requirements, including "all ... initial and re-qualification training standards for firearms and other equipment, as applicable." D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 6-A, § 1100.7(h). To obtain his SPO commission, Haymon "complied with all preliminary requirements allowing him to carry a firearm," including "completion of the Armed Special Police Officers Firearms Course," for which he received an "SOMB Certificate." Dkt. 1-2 at 4 (Compl. ¶ 7). According to Haymon, the certificate "affirmed that [he] was authorized to bear firearms pursuant to having ‘successfully completed the Firearms Certification Course requirements.’ " Id.
Moreover, his SPO commission "contained no restriction prohibiting him from carrying a firearm while on duty." Id. (Compl. ¶ 8). Haymon clarified in a subsequent filing, however, that he merely contends that "his SPO [commission] did not indicate whether it was for armed or unarmed" activity. Dkt. 22 at 2.
On May 19, 2019, Haymon was working on assignment at a Safeway in Washington, D.C. Dkt. 1-2 at 4 (Compl. ¶ 9). According to Haymon, "[s]uddenly, [and] without warning, shooting erupted in the parking lot." Id. (Compl. ¶ 10). The shooter appeared to be targeting a woman. Id. "[I]n an effort to protect the woman, other shoppers, and himself," Haymon "returned fire." Id. at 4–5 (Compl. ¶ 11). Haymon alleges that, "[a]s a result of [his] prompt, resolute and heroic efforts," the shooter fled and no one was injured. Id. at 5 (Compl. ¶ 12).
That same day, the MPD performed a "routine investigation" of Haymon's conduct during the incident. Id. (Compl. ¶ 13). According to Haymon, the investigation "acknowledged that [he] had acted properly" by discharging his firearm under the circumstances. Id. But despite that conclusion, Defendant McGunigal—who was the Senior Sergeant for the SOMB, id. at 3 (Compl. ¶ 5)—allegedly "harbored unjustified reservations regarding [Haymon's] clear, defensive use of his firearm in the line of duty," id. at 5 (Compl. ¶ 14). As a result, McGunigal summarily revoked Haymon's SPO commission that very same day "without notice or justification." Id. (Compl. ¶ 15). Although the document memorializing the revocation stated that "there had been an ‘unlawful discharge of [a] firearm,’ " no one explained to Haymon "why the discharge was allegedly ‘unlawful’ " or gave him "notice or any opportunity to appeal, clear his name, or address the revocation." Id. (Compl. ¶ 16). To date, the MPD has failed to issue any "findings, report, or ... determinations ... regarding the status of [Haymon's] ... revocation," id., or to send Haymon any communication relating to the revocation. Id. at 6 (Compl. ¶ 19). Without his commission, Haymon alleges that he "has been unable to earn a livelihood and [to] pursue his career as a[n] [SPO]." Id. at 5–6 (Compl. ¶ 18).
On February 24, 2021, Haymon filed this lawsuit in Superior Court, naming as Defendants the District of Columbia and McGunigal. Dkt. 1-2 at 2. In his complaint, Haymon asserts three claims. The first two claims allege that Defendants violated Haymon's due process rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 6–10 (Compl. ¶¶ 20–45) (Counts I & II). The third claim alleges that Defendants tortiously interfered with Haymon's prospective business advantage under D.C. law. Id. at 12–13 (Compl. ¶¶ 46–61) (Count III). Haymon seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Id. (Compl.).
On April 1, 2021, the District timely removed the case to this Court, Dkt. 1, and, on May 13, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Dkt. 10. Attached to Defendants’ motion is a one-page exhibit that they refer to as Haymon's "SPO Commission Application Approval, dated Nov. 28, 2018." Id. at 8. That document, Dkt. 10-3 at 2, which is reproduced in an appendix to this opinion, is titled "Application Approval" and bears the logos of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the MPD, and the SOMB. Id. Among other things, the approval form provides the following information: "Date Reviewed: 10/22/2018;" "Name of Individual: Guy Haymon;" and, at the bottom, "Date: 11/28/18." Id. The form also provides boxes that the "reviewing officer" can check to indicate the "Application Type;" "Documents Required;" "Designations;" and whether the applicant's "Criminal History Review" was "Approved" or "Disapproved." Id. Several boxes are checked, but two boxes appear as though they may have been checked initially and then erased: (1) a box indicating that that the required documentation included a "Range Certification," and (2) a box indicating that Haymon received a "Designation[ ]" for "SPO Armed." Id. Under the heading "Criminal History Review," the approval form indicates that Haymon was "approved." Id. Immediately below that designation, however, the form provides a space for the reviewing official to "list deficiency" "[i]f disapproved." Id. In that space, it says in handwritten text: "UNARMED SPO ONLY." Id.
After Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, Haymon initially disputed the authenticity of the approval form exhibit. In his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Haymon "contest[ed] the authenticity and reliability of Defendants Ex. No. 3 (Application Approval)" because "it appear[ed] to indicate that it ha[d] been altered." Dkt. 12 at 23 n.13. In addition, Haymon filed a motion to strike the exhibit on the ground that "it appear[ed] to have been altered and[,] as a result, the authenticity of [the document] appears to be disputed." Dkt. 15 at 1. In opposing Plaintiff's motion to strike, Defendants provided the Court with several additional exhibits corroborating Defendants’ contention that Haymon was approved as an "UNARMED SPO ONLY." Dkt. 17-1 at 6. Those exhibits included an email dated December 5, 2018, from an SOMB official to "Plaintiff's employer, Ronald Gaines," Dkt. 17 at 7, which states: "FYI, it took a lot, but I was able to get Mr. Haymon an[ ] unarmed SPO license," Dkt. 17-1 at 12.
After reviewing these materials, Haymon withdrew his motion to strike. Dkt. 20 at 1. According to Haymon, "what was anticipated as a simple motion regarding the legal clarity and applicability of the subject documents to Defendants’ [m]otion to [d]ismiss has become distorted and has morphed into a distraction." Id. Haymon urged, moreover, that "a just and fair adjudication of the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial