Keenan v. Ahern
| Decision Date | 08 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 2:20cv78 |
| Parties | Johnathan KEENAN, Plaintiff, v. William P. AHERN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Scott Joseph Flax, Tavss Fletcher PC, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff.
Gerald Logan Harris, Christopher Scott Boynton, Kathleen Abbott Keffer, Mark Douglas Stiles, Office of the City Attorney, Virginia Beach, VA, for Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant William P. Ahern's ("Defendant" or "Ahern") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Johnathan Keenan's ("Plaintiff" or "Keenan") Complaint on the basis of qualified immunity, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 6. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that a hearing on the motion is unnecessary.
Therefore, Defendant's associated consent motion seeking a hearing is DENIED . ECF No. 10. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
On April 19, 2017, Ahern, a Virginia Beach police officer, was on patrol when he spotted a vehicle in a parking lot "match[ing] the description of a vehicle that had been reported to the police earlier that evening."2 ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 3-5. Keenan was in the passenger seat of the parked vehicle, while an unidentified individual was in the driver's seat with his or her door ajar. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6-7. Ahern pulled into the parking lot and exited his patrol vehicle, accompanied by his canine partner. Id. ¶ 5. Other Virginia Beach police officers apparently arrived at the scene around the same time, though it is unspecified how many. See id. ¶¶ 7, 10. Ahern commanded the two occupants to exit the vehicle. Id. ¶ 7. The individual in the driver's seat heeded Ahern's command and was taken into custody by another officer. Id. Keenan, however, remained motionless in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Id. Ahern, who could see Keenan through the open driver's door, issued "repeated verbal commands" to Keenan to exit the vehicle, but Keenan "was unconscious and unresponsive." Id. ¶¶ 8-9.
Despite having no reason to believe that Keenan presented a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to Ahern or others, or that Keenan would attempt to resist arrest or escape, "Ahern released his canine into the open driver's door of the vehicle, where the canine walked across the seat and bit Keenan in the face and arm repeatedly." Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Ahern then walked around to the passenger side of the vehicle, opened the passenger door, and removed a now-conscious Keenan from the car, "with the canine still attached [to Keenan]." Id. ¶¶ 11-13. As a result of the encounter, Keenan sustained severe injuries and associated medical expenses. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16, 19.
On April 19, 2019, Keenan brought suit against Ahern in his individual capacity in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and battery under Virginia law. Defendant timely removed the action to this Court, ECF No. 1, and now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity, ECF No. 6. Should the Court dismiss such claim, Defendant further requests that the Court either dismiss Plaintiff's battery claim or remand it to the Virginia Beach Circuit Court. Id. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's motion, ECF No. 8, and Defendant filed a reply, ECF No. 9. The matter is therefore ripe for consideration.
The well-established Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review requires the dismissal of a complaint that fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although a complaint need not be detailed, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Nor does "an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Johnson v. Am. Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693, 709 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ).
A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint without resolving factual disputes, and a district court " ‘must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint’ and ‘draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’ " Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep't v. Montgomery County, 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). Although the truth of well-pled facts is presumed, a court is not bound by the "legal conclusions drawn from the facts" and "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000) ; see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. In addition, "while it is generally not appropriate to consider the viability of affirmative defenses at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, in ‘relatively rare circumstances’ where all of the facts ‘necessary to the affirmative defense clearly appear on the face of the complaint,’ an affirmative defense ... may be resolved on a motion to dismiss." Waites v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:15cv353, 2016 WL 659084, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2016) (quoting Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007) ).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), so as to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). Fair notice is provided by setting forth enough facts for the complaint to be "plausible on its face" and "raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. (citation omitted).
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 "is not ‘a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes.’ " Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) ).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures. See Schultz v. Braga, 455 F.3d 470, 476 (4th Cir. 2006) (). In his Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's excessive force claim should be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity given that, regardless of any allegations suggesting a constitutional violation, Defendant's alleged conduct did not violate a "clearly established" constitutional right.3 ECF No. 7, at 5.
The doctrine of qualified immunity "shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person." Meyers v. Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723, 731 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ). As explained by the Supreme Court, qualified immunity "balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Put simply, Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) ).
An official seeking to invoke the protections of qualified immunity "must demonstrate that (1) a plaintiff has not alleged or shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, or that (2) the right at issue was [not] clearly established at the time of its alleged violation." Owens v. Balt. City State's Att'ys Off., 767 F.3d 379, 395-96 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (internal quotation...
To continue reading
Request your trial