Johnson v. Prince George's County

• Decision Date: 01 March 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. DKC 10-0582
• Parties: STEVE JOHNSON v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

STEVE JOHNSON

v.PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al.

Civil Action No. DKC 10-0582

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Dated: March 1, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Two motions are presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil rights action: (1) a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed by Defendants Prince George's County and Prince George's County Police Officer Ruben Paz (ECF No. 20); and (2) a motion to strike certain exhibits to Plaintiff Steve Johnson's opposition, which was also filed by Defendants (ECF No. 26). Because the issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary, the court now rules. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, construed as a motion for summary judgment, will be granted in part and denied in part. In addition, Defendants' motion to strike will be denied.¹

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The parties agree on few of the relevant facts of this case. They agree that early on the morning of September 5, 2009, Prince George's County Police Officers Ruben Paz and Richard Clark responded to a call complaining of disorderly conduct at 7 625 Ingrid Place in Landover. Somehow, the situation escalated and Officer Paz sprayed Plaintiff Steve Johnson in the face with Oleoresin Capsicum ("O.C.") spray.²Johnson ended up on the ground. He was then arrested and criminally charged. Those charges were later dismissed nolle prosequi.

Beyond these basic facts, there is little accord.

According to Johnson, he was standing on the sidewalk with one another friend on the night in question. (ECF No. 24-1 ¶ 2). Two police officers approached the two men, and one of the officers ordered the men to "[s]it down on the ground." (Id.). When Johnson asked the officer why, the officer repeated his request. (Id.). Johnson asked again "whether there was a reason why [he] should be sitting on the ground" and whether he was under arrest. (Id.). The questioning officer then purportedly approached Johnson and sprayed him in the face with OC spray. (Id.). The two officers allegedly tackled him, threw him to the ground, and began beating him with nightsticks, causing substantial bruising. (Id.; ECF No. 16-2). When an ambulance arrived, the officers "waived the ambulance off" and refused to allow medical treatment. (ECF No. 24-1 ¶ 2).

Johnson was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and "failing to obey the lawful order of a police [officer] designed to prevent a disturbance of the peace, " crimes Johnson says he did not commit. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6; ECF No. 24-3).

Johnson emphasizes that he was not with a large group of people that night, was not behaving in a disorderly manner, did not resist arrest or otherwise fail to cooperate with police, and cooperated when he was taken to the Department of Corrections. (ECF No. 24-1 ¶¶ 3-4).

Officers Clark and Pax tell a different story. They say that they responded to a call at 7625 Ingrid Place that reported "several males being loud and disorderly and smoking in the area in question." (ECF No. 20-4 ¶¶-7; see also ECF No. 20-5 ¶¶ 7). When the officers arrived on the scene, they did in fact find a group of males "behaving in a loud and disorderly fashion." (ECF No. 20-4 ¶9; see also ECF No. 20-5 ¶). From the cruiser, Officer Paz told the group to disperse. (ECF Nos. 20-4 5 10; 20-5 5 10). According to the officers, everyone complied except for Johnson. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶11; 20-5 5 11). Officer Paz told Johnson again to leave the area and asked him where he lived; Johnson purportedly responded that it was none of the officer's business. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶14-15; 20-5 ¶1415). When Officer Paz told Johnson that he would need to leave if he did not live in the area, Johnson responded that he did not live in the area and "he was not going any fu_ing where." (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶17; 20-5 ¶17).

Officers Paz and Clark then got out of their cruiser and ordered Johnson to produce identification. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 8;

20-5 ¶ 8). He allegedly answered that he "did not have to provide sh--t." (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶19; 20-5 ¶19). Officer Pazagain told Johnson that he would need to produce identification and "verify the nature of his business at the location." (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 20; 20-5 ¶ 20). Because Officer Paz noticed that Johnson had his hands in his pockets, he also ordered him to show his hands for safety reasons. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 24; 20-5 5 24). Once more, Johnson responded in a hostile manner, allegedly asking the officers to "give him a fuc—ing reason why he should do that." (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 24; 20-5 ¶ 24). Officer Clark again commanded Johnson to take his hands out of his pockets, but he still refused to comply. (ECF Nos. 20-4 55 2526; 20-5 ¶¶ 25-26).

Officer Paz then tried to place Johnson under arrest, but Johnson jerked his arms and moved around such that the officer could not grab his hands. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶¶ 27-28; 20-5 ¶¶ 2728). After "announc[ing]" that he had O.C. spray twice (ECF No. 20-4 ¶ 29), Officer Paz sprayed Johnson with a burst of the spray for one second in the face (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶¶ 29-30; 20-5 ¶ 29). Johnson fell to the ground and, after some struggling, the officers were together able to cuff him. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶¶ 3133; 20-5 ¶¶ 30-31).

Once he was cuffed, the officers decontaminated Johnson with water. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 34; 20-5 ¶ 32). Fireboard personnel arrived and also decontaminated him. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶¶ 35-36; 20-5 ¶¶ 33-34). Because he was not injured and he refused to treatment, Johnson was not taken to the hospital but instead was transported to the DOC. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶¶ 37-39, 43; 20-5 ¶¶ 35[a], 32[b], 36; 20-6 ¶¶ 10-13). At DOC, Johnson allegedly refused to cooperate by providing necessary information. (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 40; 20-5 ¶¶ 33). After processing, Johnson appeared before a district court commissioner who found probable cause for all charges. (ECF Nos. 20-4 5 41; 20-5 ¶¶ 34; see generally ECF Nos. 20-4, Ex. 1.3; 20-5, Ex. 2.3).

Both officers emphasize that they "never hit, beat, kicked, used the asp baton, or injured Johnson." (ECF Nos. 20-4 ¶ 43;

20-5 ¶ 36). A later Prince George's Police Department

investigation also concluded that Officer Paz's use of O.C. spray was authorized by department policy. (ECF No. 20-6 55 1819).

B. Procedural Background

Johnson initially filed his complaint in this case on January 27, 2010 in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. (ECF No. 1). That complaint asserted six counts against Officer Paz: assault, battery, negligence, false arrest, excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and arrest without probable cause pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 2). It also stated two counts pursuant to Section 1983 against Prince George's County premised on excessive force and arrest without probable cause. (Id.). After receiving the Summons and Complaint on February 23, Prince George's County³ timely removed the matter to this court on March 8, 2010. (ECF No. 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on March 26, 2010 (ECF No. 14), but that motion and an accompanying motion to strike (ECF No. 19) were mooted when Johnson was granted leave to amend⁴ on April 26 (ECF No. 21).⁵ On April 23, 2010-before the amended complaint had even been accepted and docketed by the court-Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment directed at the amended complaint. (ECF No. 20). Johnson opposed. (ECF No. 24). Concurrent with their reply (ECF No. 25), Defendants filed another motion to strike (ECF No. 26).

II. Standard of Review

Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. A court considers only the pleadings when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Because Defendants' motion relies extensively on matters outside the pleadings, the court will construe it as a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); see also Walker v. True, 399 F.3d 315, 319 n.2 (4^th Cir. 2005); Offen v. Brenner, 553 F.Supp.2d 565, 568 (D.Md. 2008).

A court may enter summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4^th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is inappropriate if any material factual issue "may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Washington Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4^th Cir. 2001).

"A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings, ' but rather must 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4^th Cir. 2003) (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). "A mere scintilla of proof... will not suffice to prevent summary judgment." Peters v. Jenney, 327 F.3d 307, 314 (4^th Cir. 2003). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50. (citations omitted). At the same time, the court must construe the facts that are presented in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007); Emmett, 532 F.3d at 297.

III. Analysis

A. Claims Against Officer Paz

1. Constitutional Claims

Pursuant to Section 1983, Johnson asserts that Officer Paz violated his constitutional rights "to be free from the use of excessive force" and "to be free from arrest without probable cause." Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted as to both claims.

First, Johnson alleges that his seizure and arrest violated his Fourth Amendment right in that it was effectuated without probable cause....