Lin v. Dist. of Columbia
| Decision Date | 15 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16-645 (CKK) |
| Parties | XINGRU LIN, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff, a bus company ticket agent, alleges that the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") violated her rights in various ways during two separate arrests, occurring February 15, 2016 and April 12, 2016. Pending before the Court is Defendant District of Columbia's [71] Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendant's motion. The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and will DISMISS Plaintiff's:
However, the Court otherwise DENIES Defendant's Motion, and rules that Plaintiff may proceed with the remainder of her claims.
During all relevant times, Plaintiff worked as a ticket agent for a bus company called Focus Travel Agency in Washington, D.C. Pl.'s Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), ECF No. 70, ¶ 4. Her duties included selling tickets and checking the tickets of passengers. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 5. She is of Chinese descent and has a limited understanding of English. She is fluent in Fuzhou and Mandarin Chinese. Id. at ¶ 2.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint contains allegations regarding two different encounters with the MPD that took place on February 15, 2016 and April 12, 2016. Plaintiff states that, as a result of these encounters with the MPD, she is "fearful and anxious when she encounters police." Id. at ¶ 70. She "is now too afraid to call MPD for help in case of emergency." Id. at ¶ 71. Plaintiff alleges that both of her arrests, detentions, and any use of force by the MPD was without legal cause. Id. at ¶¶ 88-89. Plaintiff claims that Defendant knew or should have known that MPD officers commonly use excessive force, arrest individuals without probable cause, and violate individuals' First Amendment rights, but has demonstrated deliberate indifference by failing to adequately train, supervise, and discipline officers. Id. at ¶ 92.
On February 15, 2016, Plaintiff alleges that a woman boarded a bus without paying. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff asked the woman to leave. Id. The woman initially left but then continued to attempt to sneak onto the bus multiple times. Id. Plaintiff took the woman's photograph with a cell phone "to alert other employees to her attempted fare evasion." Id. at ¶ 12. The woman, not pleased at having been photographed, jumped up and grabbed Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that she then pushed the woman away. Id. Both women called the police. Id. at ¶ 14.
Plaintiff alleges that two MPD officers arrived at the Agency and encountered the woman outside. The woman told the officers that Plaintiff had attacked her for no reason. Id. at ¶ 15. One of the officers entered the Agency where Plaintiff was on her cell phone waiting to be connected to the MPD's Language Line interpretation service. Id. at ¶ 17. Despite telling the officer that she was unable to speak English, Plaintiff alleges that the officer told her to hang up the phone. Plaintiff complied. Id.
At this point, the other officer came into the Agency. Almost immediately, this officer grabbed Plaintiff's right arm and told her to turn around. But, Plaintiff did not understand the instruction. The officer continued to pull Plaintiff's arm and yell at her so that Plaintiff was forced onto a bench. Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff then alleges that each of the officers grabbed one of Plaintiff's arms, lifted her up from the bench, rushed her across the room, and pushed her face into the wall. Id. at ¶ 20.
Two other officers then entered the Agency. The officers allegedly forced Plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed her. Plaintiff "felt as if the officers were kicking her in the back andshoulders, and she screamed with pain." Id. at ¶ 21. The officers then lifted Plaintiff onto a bench and requested an interpreter. Id. at ¶ 23.
Minutes later, two officers from the MPD Asian Liaison Unit arrived. An officer began to interpret for Plaintiff. Plaintiff explained the incident to the officer. Id. at ¶ 24. While Plaintiff was speaking with the interpreter, other officers reviewed the Agency's closed-circuit video and determined that Plaintiff had not acted unlawfully. Id. at ¶ 25. The officers removed Plaintiff's handcuffs. Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff had been handcuffed for 18 minutes. Id. at ¶ 27.
Supervising sergeants then arrived and began to review the closed-circuit footage. Id. at ¶ 29. Plaintiff asked for the name and badge number of each officer present. Two officers provided their information. But, when Plaintiff moved to ask the officers outside the Agency for their information, Plaintiff was told she could not leave. Plaintiff responded by saying, "I will sue you." Id. at ¶ 31. Several minutes later, Plaintiff claims that an officer again handcuffed her and told her that she was being arrested for assaulting an officer. Id. at ¶ 32. Plaintiff claims that the officer arrested her on his supervising sergeant's order. Id. at ¶ 34.
Plaintiff was then taken to the police station without an interpreter present. Id. at ¶ 35. Once at the station, Plaintiff was processed by English-speaking officers. Id. at ¶ 36. After being processed, Plaintiff was visited by her interpreter who took a statement from her. Id. at ¶ 38. While in detention, Plaintiff alleges that she complained about pain in her arms, shoulder, and back. Plaintiff was taken to Howard University Hospital. Id. at ¶ 40. Plaintiff alleges that an officer watched her while she undressed for her examination. Id. at ¶ 43. Following her examination, Plaintiff was given painkillers. Id. at ¶ 45.
Plaintiff was then brought back to the police station and detained overnight. Id. at ¶ 46. She was not able to access an interpreter. Id. The next day, Plaintiff was brought to SuperiorCourt where she learned that the government had dropped the charges against her. Id. at ¶ 47. In total, Plaintiff was held in custody for approximately 20 hours. Id. at ¶ 49.
On April 12, 2016, Plaintiff refused to allow a customer to board a bus with an expired ticket. Id. at ¶ 51. The customer "pushed past [Plaintiff] to board the bus" regardless. Id. He eventually left the bus voluntarily, and, unbeknownst to Plaintiff called the police. Id. at ¶ 52.
When Plaintiff returned to her office later that day, an MPD officer arrived. Id. at ¶ 53. The officer attempted to communicate with Plaintiff in English and ignored Plaintiff's requests for an interpreter. Id. at ¶¶ 54-55. Plaintiff eventually sought the help of her neighbor to communicate with the officer. Id. at ¶ 57. Plaintiff alleges that, through her neighbor, the officer told her that she should follow him to the police station to give a statement, after which she would be released. Id. at ¶ 58. Plaintiff exited her enclosed office space and was arrested and transported to the police station. Id. at ¶ 60.
At the police station, an officer communicated with Plaintiff through a Language Line telephonic interpreter, asking her basic information and informing her of the charge against her. Id. at ¶ 61. After being held at the station for about an hour, a Cantonese-speaking officer arrived and attempted to communicate with Plaintiff. However, due to differences in dialect, they were "barely able to communicate." Id. at ¶ 62. Two hours after her arrival at the station, Plaintiff was released with a citation for simple assault instructing her to appear in Superior Court on May 12, 2016. Id. at ¶ 63.
During the April 12, 2016 incident, Plaintiff was handcuffed for a total of ten minutes and detained for approximately two hours. Id. at ¶ 64. Plaintiff retained an attorney for her courtappearance. But, when she arrived at court, she was told that the government would not press charges. Id. at ¶ 65.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint contains a number of counts, which purport to assert a long list of claims. Plaintiff asserts claims for:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial