Ogunsula v. Md. State Police

• Decision Date: 11 August 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action ELH-20-2568
• Parties: VERONICA W. OGUNSULA, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

VERONICA W. OGUNSULA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-20-2568

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander United States District Judge

The self-represented plaintiff, Veronica Ogunsula, an African American woman, had an unfortunate experience that began on August 30, 2017, while she was driving from her home in Maryland to New Jersey. In particular, a Maryland State Trooper conducted a traffic stop of plaintiff for alleged unlawful use of her cell phone while driving. During the stop, the trooper discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for plaintiff, issued in Virginia in March 2017, charging her with failure to return a rental vehicle. As a result, plaintiff was arrested and then taken to the Harford County Detention Center (the “Detention Center”), where she remained until the night of September 2, 2017. The Virginia warrant was subsequently withdrawn.

This civil rights suit followed on August 31, 2020, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initially sued the Maryland State Police (the “MSP”); Maryland State Trooper First Class Michael Warrenfeltz, in his individual and official capacity; Colonel Woodrow W. Jones III, superintendent of the MSP, in his official capacity; and Michael Capasso, Warden of the Detention Center, in his official capacity. ECF 1 (the “Complaint”). I shall refer to all defendants, other than Capasso, as the “MSP Defendants.”

Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that Warrenfeltz violated her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution in connection with the traffic stop on August 30, 2017,

1

including by stopping her without reasonable suspicion and selectively based on her race. ECF 1 at 2. Moreover, she claimed that correctional officers working at the Detention Center violated her due process rights by detaining her without making known the charges against her; holding her after she obtained bail; and confining her for an excessive amount of time. Id.

Defendants previously moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 23 (MSP Defendants motion); ECF 31 (Capasso motion). In addition to opposing both motions, plaintiff filed a motion to amend her Complaint (ECF 37), along with a proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF 37-1. The FAC sought to sue Capasso in his individual capacity, and to add unnamed correctional officers as defendants. Id. at 1-2.

In a Memorandum Opinion (ECF 41) and Order (ECF 42) of December 23, 2021, I construed Capasso's motion as a motion to dismiss and granted it, without prejudice and with leave to amend. I also construed the MSP Defendants' motion as a motion to dismiss and granted it, with leave to amend only as to plaintiff's equal protection claim against Warrenfeltz, alleging selective enforcement based on race. And, I granted plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint within 28 days of the docketing of ECF 42. Specifically, I granted plaintiff leave to amend her suit against Capasso, to name him in his individual capacity, and to include facts that, if proven, would establish that he was personally involved with the alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights, either in a supervisory capacity or individually. And, I also granted leave to plaintiff to amend the Complaint to allege facts that, if proven, would establish an equal protection violation as to Warrenfeltz. See ECF 41 at 67; ECF 42 at 1.

2

In response to the Court's ruling, plaintiff filed ECF 48 on February 10, 2022.^[1] ECF 48 is a multi-part document that is difficult to characterize succinctly. It is captioned “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint,” and seeks leave to file the attached “Second Amended Complaint,” citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. A redlined version of the proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is docketed at ECF 48-3.^[2] As discussed, infra, many of the changes in the SAC appear to be only marginally related to the issues for which the Court granted leave to amend. The SAC is accompanied by one exhibit. ECF 48-1 at 9.^[3]

ECF 48-1 is a memorandum captioned “Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.” This document cites Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), and contains a wide-ranging critique of the Court's ruling of December 23, 2021, concluding with a request for the Court to “reconsider” that ruling. ECF 48-1 at 8. In other words, although it has been offered in connection with a “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint,” and makes occasional reference to the SAC, ECF 48-1 bears all the hallmarks of a motion for reconsideration.^[4]

3

Keeping in mind plaintiff's pro se status, ECF 48 has three components. First, per the Court's ruling of December 23, 2021, the SAC (ECF 48-3) is the operative pleading as to those issues where the Court granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. Second, ECF 48 seeks reconsideration of the Court's ruling of December 23, 2021. ECF 48-1. Third, plaintiff requests leave to amend her Complaint more broadly, via the SAC, even as to issues where the Court did not previously grant leave to amend. ECF 48; ECF 48-3.

Defendants seek to dismiss ECF 48. ECF 49; ECF 51. Capasso has filed a “Motion to Dismiss First and Second Amended Complaints, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.” ECF 49. This motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 49-1) (collectively, the “Capasso Motion”). And, the MSP Defendants have filed a “Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend.” ECF 51. It is supported by a memorandum (ECF 51-1) (collectively, the “MSP Motion”).

Plaintiff opposes both motions. ECF 55 (the “Capasso Motion Opposition”); ECF 56 (the “MSP Motion Opposition”). The MSP Defendants have replied. ECF 57. Capasso has not replied, and his time to do so has passed.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration; grant plaintiff leave to file the SAC, which revives her reasonable suspicion claim against Warrenfeltz; grant the Capasso Motion; and grant the MSP Motion, except as to plaintiff's reasonable suspicion claim against Warrenfeltz.

4

I. Factual Background^[5]

To avoid a needlessly lengthy opinion, I assume familiarity with the factual background and legal discussion contained in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of December 23, 2021 (ECF 41), which is incorporated here.

In brief, on August 30, 2017, plaintiff was traveling north on I-95 in Baltimore in a rental car when she was stopped by Warrenfeltz, a trooper with the Maryland State Police. ECF 1 at 3; ECF 48-3 at 3-4. Plaintiff is a Black woman and Warrenfeltz is a white man. ECF 1 at 3; ECF 48-3 at 3-4. Plaintiff was purportedly stopped for unlawfully using her cell phone while driving. ECF 1 at 3; ECF 48-3 at 4. But, plaintiff alleges that she was using the phone solely for its Global Positioning System (“GPS”) function, and insists that Warrenfeltz could not have observed her handling the phone. ECF 1 at 3; ECF 48-3 at 3-4.

During plaintiff's encounter with Warrenfeltz, he learned that there was an outstanding warrant for plaintiff's arrest. ECF 1 at 4; ECF 48-3 at 4. Therefore, Warrenfeltz handcuffed plaintiff and drove her to the Detention Center. ECF 1 at 4-5; ECF 48-3 at 4-5. After Warrenfeltz brought plaintiff to the Detention Center, he is not alleged to have had any further involvement with plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims that she was detained for at least eight or nine hours before she was allowed to use the bathroom and make a telephone call. ECF 1 at 5; ECF 48-3 at 5. Around this time, she was taken to see the “commissioner,” who was unable to provide her with details as to the charges

5

against her, but asked if she wanted a public defender, to which she indicated that she would contact a private attorney. ECF 1 at 5; ECF 48-3 at 5-6. A few hours later, she was taken back to the commissioner, who provided her with a copy of a warrant issued by the General District Court of Arlington County, Virginia, accusing her of failing to return a rental car rented at National Airport in Arlington. ECF 1 at 5-6; ECF 48-3 at 6. Plaintiff protested that the charges were false and that she had never rented a car at National Airport or in Virginia. She also tried to contact an attorney, without success. ECF 1 at 5-6; ECF 48-3 at 6.

The following morning, plaintiff was transported to the courthouse, where she told “the judge” that she was not guilty, and the judge set her bond at $5,000. ECF 1 at 6; ECF 48-3 at 6. When she was brought back from the hearing, it was not explained to her how bail would work, but correctional officers told her that she would have to contact a bail bondsman in order to be released. ECF 1 at 6; ECF 48-3 at 6. She was shown a list of bondsmen, but alleges that when she asked to place a call to someone who could pay bail, she was told “not now,” or that she would have to wait until her daily break. ECF 1 at 6; ECF 48-3 at 6. She also asserts she was told that she was to be extradited to Virginia, a process that could take up to 90 days. ECF 1 at 6; ECF 483 at 6. Her bail was ultimately paid on September 1, 2017, but she was not released from the Detention Center until 11:00 p.m. on September 2, 2017, 18 hours after her bail was paid. ECF 1 at 6; ECF 48-3 at 7.^[6]

Records submitted with the MSP Defendants' previous motion, and considered in the Court's previous ruling, indicate that the officer who initially applied for the Virginia warrant returned all copies of the unserved warrant to the Arlington Commonwealth Attorney's Office on

6

or about September 18, 2017, with a request that it be withdrawn. ECF 28-3 at 5. And, on October 5, 2017, the State of Maryland entered a Nolle Prosequi on the “Fugitive from Justice-VA” charge on which plaintiff was held. ECF...