Jackson v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-2247 (TJK)

CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia
Writing for the CourtTIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge
Citation327 F.Supp.3d 52
Parties Elijah JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 15-2247 (TJK)
Decision Date24 August 2018

327 F.Supp.3d 52

Elijah JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-2247 (TJK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed August 24, 2018


327 F.Supp.3d 56

John Thomas McGowan, Jr., Meredith L. Kinner, Kinner & McGowan, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Kerslyn D. Featherstone, Akua Damali Coppock, Office of Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY J. KELLY, United States District Judge

Early in the morning on May 5, 2015, Plaintiff Elijah Jackson struck a moped

327 F.Supp.3d 57

while driving, drunk, with two companions. After leaving the scene of the accident, Jackson was pulled over by the police. What happened next is disputed. According to the officers, Jackson resisted arrest and they used reasonable force in restraining him. According to Jackson, the officers maliciously beat him even though he tried to comply with their orders. He subsequently underwent neck surgery, and claims to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident.

Jackson has sued the District of Columbia (the "District") and seven individual police officers: John Merzig, Matthew Fogle, Kanika Bolton, Carol Smith, Antoine Braithwaite, Lorelei Hillgren, and Michael Harrison. He brings claims for violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants have moved for partial judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment on Jackson's Fifth Amendment claim against all Defendants; on all claims against Defendants Bolton, Smith, Braithwaite, Hillgren and Harrison; and on Jackson's claim against the District for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 35. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court will dismiss the Fifth Amendment claim in its entirety. It will also grant summary judgment for Harrison on all claims, for Smith and Bolton on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and for the District on the municipal-liability claim. The motion will otherwise be denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Night of May 4-5, 2015, and its Aftermath

On the evening of May 4, 2015, Jackson met up with a friend named Jordathan Jones and Jones's "lady friend." Pl.'s Ex. 1 (Jackson Dep.) at 20:2-17, 21:13-17.1 Jones, using a borrowed car, drove the group to a strip club in downtown Washington, D.C. Pl.'s Ex. 1 (Jackson Dep.) at 21:5-12, 22:9-23:22. Jones and his "lady friend" went in, while Jackson waited for them in the car. Id. at 23:9-17. The couple returned after an hour or two, and all three headed to a liquor store in Maryland (the liquor stores in Washington were closed by that hour). Id at 25:16-21. They purchased tequila. Id. at 26:11-14. At that point, Jackson took over the driving, drinking "more than a pint" of the tequila as he went. Id. at 26:20-28:11, 154:10-17.

At around 1:30 in the morning, while driving along Florida Avenue in Northeast Washington, near Gallaudet University, Jackson struck a moped. Id. at 28:18-21, 30:17-31:14; Compl. ¶ 11. In Jackson's telling, the crash was a minor one and he exchanged information with the moped driver. Pl.'s Ex. 1 (Jackson Dep.) at 29:2-18. However, the moped driver was irate and insisted on receiving compensation for the accident then and there, prompting Jackson to drive away, ostensibly to seek police protection. Id. at 29:15-30:16. Shortly afterward, he was pulled over by a police car with its lights flashing and exited the vehicle. Id. at 32:8-33:14.

Jackson and the police officers differ on what happened next. The record before the Court is largely silent regarding the

327 F.Supp.3d 58

views of Officers Merzig and Fogle, the two officers who initially pulled Jackson over, see Compl. ¶ 13.2 It does reflect the accounts of the officers who came on the scene shortly afterward: first Officers Smith and Bolton, followed later by Officers Braithwaite and Hillgren. See Pl.'s Ex. 4 (Bolton's written report); Pl.'s Ex. 5 (Braithwaite's and Hillgren's written statements). According to these officers, Jackson was already "combative" and resisting arrest by the time they arrived, requiring the use of force to restrain him. See Pl.'s Ex. 3 (Smith Dep.) at 24:19-25:19, 28:10-29:5, 30:22-31:14; Pl.'s Ex. 4 (Bolton's written report) at 3; Pl.'s Ex. 5 (Braithwaite's and Hillgren's written statements). Smith reports that she was able to handcuff only one of Jackson's wrists at this point. Pl.'s Ex. 3 (Smith Dep.) at 38:21-39:3. One of the officers used pepper spray to subdue Jackson, but according to Smith, it was ineffective. Id. at 31:19-32:4. The officers then employed a "tactical takedown" or "leg sweep," a police maneuver in which officers sweep an arrestee's legs out from under him in order to place the arrestee on the ground and restrain him. See id. at 36:22-38:2, 39:11-13. Once Jackson was on the ground, officers were able to finish handcuffing him. See id. at 38:7-14. Smith testified that the officers did not use additional force, for example by punching or kicking Jackson, during the takedown. See id. at 40:7-17.

In Jackson's account, by contrast, the officers gratuitously beat him notwithstanding his efforts to comply with their instructions. He claims that Fogle instructed him to return to his car, but that before he could do so, Fogle and Merzig "rushed up" and grabbed him. Pl.'s Ex. 1 (Jackson Dep.) at 36:3-37:17, 46:8-11. One of the officers, Jackson testified, slammed his face into the top of the car, and the two officers began "trying to pull" him in "different directions." Id. at 39:11-41:11. Then Smith and Bolton arrived. See id. at 43:8-10, 161:1-13. Jackson claims that Smith yelled, "Hey, what are you guys doing to him?" Id. at 43:14-19. In response, Fogle and Merzig stopped struggling with Jackson. Id. at 43:20-22. Smith asked Jackson to let her handcuff him, and Jackson began to comply by holding out his left wrist (another officer still had hold of his right arm). Id. at 44:9-18, 161:1-22. Despite his compliance, Jackson claims, Fogle "maced" him with pepper spray, causing him to clutch instinctively at his face. Id. at 44:18-22, 46:5-7. The pepper spray affected Smith as well. Id. at 46:19-47:2.

At that point, Jackson testified, Merzig and Fogle began "punching and hitting" him as he stood blinded by the pepper spray. See id. at 47:3-15. Eventually, "other officers" joined in, id. at 47:19-48:6, apparently including Hillgren and Braithwaite, see id. at 59:2-7, 162:13-163:2. Jackson heard someone yell, "Take him down." Id. at 49:18-19. An officer hit his thigh, causing him to lose his balance, and he "was slammed face-forward down towards the ground." Id. at 49:19-50:15. After he fell, Jackson claims, an officer's knee kept him pinned to the ground, trapping his hands underneath his body. Id. at 50:16-22, 51:22-52:2. The officers "continued punching and hitting" him in his head and body. Id. at 50:21-51:2. Someone doused him with pepper spray a second time. Id. at

327 F.Supp.3d 59

51:7-11. Finally, one of the officers instructed Jackson to put his hands behind his back so that he could be handcuffed, and Jackson explained that he could not. Id. at 52:12-53:1. At that point, the officers relented and Jackson was able to reach out his hands to be cuffed. Id. at 53:2-22. The officers sat Jackson upright on the curb. Id. at 54:1-4. After Jackson requested help getting the pepper spray out of his eyes, one of the officers said, "We need to clean him up." Id. at 55:4-11. They began to wipe his face and had him blow his nose. Id. at 55:21-56:10.

Sergeant Harrison performed the preliminary investigation into the officers' use of force against Jackson. See Pl.'s Ex. 7 (Harrison Dep.) at 32:10-33:13. He arrived after Jackson was already in handcuffs. Id. at 40:2-6. Even at that point, Harrison testified, Jackson remained "combative" and visibly intoxicated. Id. at 31:6-7, 38:11-39:7. He observed that Jackson was bleeding, and could smell pepper spray in the air. Id. at 29:3-15. He did not consider the incident to have involved a serious use of force, however, because police commonly use pepper spray and minor injuries often cause bleeding. Id. at 30:3-20. Still, because Jackson was bleeding, he was transported by ambulance to the hospital with Braithwaite. See id. at 32:15-19, 39:21-40:1. Testing at the hospital revealed that Jackson had a blood alcohol level of .201. See Pl.'s Ex. 2 (medical personnel's testimony) at 53:24-54:12.

Jackson remained at the hospital for several days. See Pl.'s Ex. 1 (Jackson Dep.) at 78:19-20. He was diagnosed with a broken nose and a bulging intervertebral disc in his neck, which required surgery to replace the disc with a metal plate. See id. at 75:4-76:10; Pl.'s Exs. 8-11 (medical records). He subsequently sought psychiatric treatment and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Pl.'s Ex. 1 (Jackson Dep.) at 96:13-99:21. He reports feeling overwhelming anxiety around police officers, particularly District officers. Id. at 109:13-111:1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 17-883 (CKK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 30 Septiembre 2020
    ...before the strikes or, conversely, whether he was actively resisting Officer Reynolds. See, e.g. , Jackson v. District of Columbia , 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 64–65 (D.D.C. 2018) ("According to Jackson, the officers beat him for no reason as he lay subdued on the ground, trying to shield himself ......
  • Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 19-1449 (JEB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 9 Julio 2021
    ...has also held that the use of takedowns is generally lawful when a suspect is resisting arrest. Jackson v. District of Columbia, 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 66 (D.D.C. 2018) ; see also Hedgpeth v. Rahim, 893 F.3d 802, 808–11 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (affirming this Court's determination that qualified immu......
  • Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council, 20200329-CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • 10 Marzo 2022
    ...but that "any statements they make can be used [against them] in a criminal proceeding." (Quoting Jackson v. District of Columbia , 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 61 n.4 (D.D.C. 2018).) In contrast, a reverse Garrity warning "advises employees that they are required to speak to investigators, that the......
  • Jalloh v. Underwood, Civil Action No. 16-1613 (TJK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 22 Mayo 2020
    ...right; (2) has a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm; and (3) chooses not to act." Jackson v. District of Columbia , 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 67 (D.D.C. 2018).The District Defendants represent that the parties have agreed that Jalloh is not pursuing this count against them, and Jalloh doe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 17-883 (CKK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 30 Septiembre 2020
    ...before the strikes or, conversely, whether he was actively resisting Officer Reynolds. See, e.g. , Jackson v. District of Columbia , 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 64–65 (D.D.C. 2018) ("According to Jackson, the officers beat him for no reason as he lay subdued on the ground, trying to shield himself ......
  • Cooper v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 19-1449 (JEB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 9 Julio 2021
    ...has also held that the use of takedowns is generally lawful when a suspect is resisting arrest. Jackson v. District of Columbia, 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 66 (D.D.C. 2018) ; see also Hedgpeth v. Rahim, 893 F.3d 802, 808–11 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (affirming this Court's determination that qualified immu......
  • Hoffman v. Peace Officer Standards & Training Council, 20200329-CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • 10 Marzo 2022
    ...but that "any statements they make can be used [against them] in a criminal proceeding." (Quoting Jackson v. District of Columbia , 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 61 n.4 (D.D.C. 2018).) In contrast, a reverse Garrity warning "advises employees that they are required to speak to investigators, that the......
  • Jalloh v. Underwood, Civil Action No. 16-1613 (TJK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 22 Mayo 2020
    ...right; (2) has a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm; and (3) chooses not to act." Jackson v. District of Columbia , 327 F. Supp. 3d 52, 67 (D.D.C. 2018).The District Defendants represent that the parties have agreed that Jalloh is not pursuing this count against them, and Jalloh doe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT