Ogunsula v. Md. State Police
| Docket Number | Civil Action ELH-20-2568 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Parties | VERONICA W. OGUNSULA, Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
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. During a traffic stop of plaintiff for alleged unlawful use of her cell phone while driving, the Maryland State trooper who conducted the stop discovered an 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 (“HCDC” or “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 The Virginia warrant was subsequently withdrawn.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, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has sued the Maryland State Police (the “MSP”); Maryland 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”).[1] I shall refer to all defendants, other than Capasso, as the “MSP Defendants.”
Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that TFC Warrenfeltz violated her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in connection with the traffic stop on August 30, 2017. Id. at 2. Moreover, she claims 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. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and legal fees. Id. at 7.[2] And, Ogunsula seeks injunctive relief. Id.
The MSP Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 23. It is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 23-1) (collectively, the “MSP Motion”) and two exhibits. ECF 23-2; ECF 23-3. Ogunsula opposes the MSP Motion (ECF 28, the “MSP Opposition”) and has submitted four exhibits (ECF 28-1 to ECF 28-4). The MSP defendants have replied. ECF 33 (the “MSP Reply”).
Capasso has also moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF 31. His motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 31-1) (collectively, the “Capasso Motion”), as well as several exhibits. See ECF 31-2; ECF 31-3; ECF 31-4. Plaintiff opposes the Capasso Motion (ECF 34, “Capasso Opposition”) and has submitted three exhibits. See ECF 34-1; ECF 34-2; ECF 34-3. Capasso replied. ECF 39 (the “Capasso Reply”).
Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Strike Warden Michael Capasso's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.” ECF 35 (“Motion to Strike”). In essence, she objects to the Court's Memorandum (ECF 25) and Order (ECF 26) of April 6, 2021 which provided Capasso an extension of time in which to respond to the Complaint. See ECF 35 at 1. Ms Ogunsula has also moved to amend the Capasso Opposition (ECF 34) and the Motion to Strike (ECF 35). See ECF 36 (“Motion to Amend Briefing”). Along with the Motion to Amend Briefing, plaintiff filed a revised version of the Motion to Strike (ECF 36-1 at 1-4); a revised version of the Capasso Opposition (ECF 36 at 4-10); and a redlined version of the Capasso Opposition (ECF 36-1 at 5-11).
Then, on May 27, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to amend her Complaint. ECF 37 (“Motion to Amend Complaint”). She provides no reasons for the amendment, nor does she specify the proposed amendments. And, she did not include a redlined version of the proposed Amended Complaint, as required by Local Rule 103.6(c). The proposed amended complaint is docketed at ECF 37-1. According to the caption, plaintiff seeks to add as defendants certain “Unnamed Correctional Defendants, ” and she seeks to sue Capasso in his official and individual capacities.
Capasso opposes the Motion to Amend Complaint, on the ground that it is futile. See ECF 38. The MSP Defendants have also responded (ECF 40), but they “defer to the Court's judgment whether to grant leave to amend the complaint.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff has not replied, and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 105.2(a).
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant plaintiff's Motion to Amend Briefing (ECF 36) and deny the Motion to Strike (ECF 35; ECF 36-1 at 1-4). In addition, I shall grant the MSP Motion and the Capasso Motion, with leave to amend as to plaintiff's Equal Protection claim against Warrenfeltz, as well as her claim against defendant Capasso. I shall grant the Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF 37) in part and deny it in part, without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file another proposed amended complaint, consistent with the analysis herein.
Ms. Ogunsula's ordeal began on August 30, 2017, after she “left her residence in College Park, Maryland to travel to Highstown, New Jersey” by way of the interstate highway. ECF 1 at 3. Plaintiff was driving a rental car that she had obtained from the “Budget Rental Car at Baltimore Washington Airport” for a one-week period, from August 24, 2017 to August 31, 2017. Id. at 4. According to plaintiff, she had placed her cell phone on the passenger seat of the vehicle because she was using its Global Positioning System (“GPS”) for directions to Highstown. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff was traveling north on I-95 and proceeded through the Fort McHenry toll booth. Soon after, she noticed a four-door vehicle “pull up beside her and drive parallel with her vehicle.” Id. According to Ogunsula, the car appeared to be “‘tracking' her, ” which plaintiff found to be “unsettling” because “the car had dark tinted windows” and she “could not determine who was driving the car . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As the vehicle passed, plaintiff observed an antenna on the rear of the car, which led her to believe that the driver was a police officer. Id. At this point, Ogunsula “glanced at her speed . . . to make sure she was not speeding, ” and then “kept driving toward her destination.” Id.
Plaintiff then “picked up an (one) Sony earbud . . . from her lap” and placed it in her ear. Id. However, “[s]he was not on a call on her cell.” Id. By this point, “the car had moved behind her.” Id. She then “quickly moved her cell phone to her lap to attach her earbud.” Id. And, plaintiff “changed lanes to let the car behind her pass by.” . However, the car followed Ogunsula and then “turned on its police lights to pull her over.” ECF 1 at 3. Plaintiff “pulled over and stopped the car.” Id.
A white police officer, in uniform, exited his vehicle and approached the passenger side of plaintiff's car. Id. Ogunsula rolled down the window of her vehicle. Id. According to the Complaint, Warrenfeltz asked plaintiff if she had been “on her cell phone.” Id. Plaintiff told the officer that “she had moved her cell phone from the passenger seat to her lap” because she was “using the phone for GPS.” Id. But, she also said she Id. Notably, plaintiff asserts: “The officer did not observe her with her cellphone in her hand or her breaking any Maryland traffic laws . . . .” Id. at 4. Accordingly, she contends that the police officer “had no reasonable basis to believe that she had broken any traffic laws within the State of Maryland, ” and the traffic stop was “baseless.” Id.
The officer, who has been identified as Warrenfeltz, asked plaintiff for her driver's license and registration, which plaintiff produced. Id. Thereafter, the officer returned to his car, where he remained, according to Ogunsula, for more than twenty minutes. Id. This delay made plaintiff “anxious because she had an appointment in New Jersey.” Id. And, she asserts that she wanted to “get out of [her] car and walk to the officer's car, but she was nervous about doing that because of the numerous incidents where unarmed people were shot by the police.” Id.
Upon Warrenfeltz's eventual return to plaintiff's vehicle, he directed plaintiff “to get out of the car.” Id. She was “astonished, ” and “asked what the issue was.” Id. The officer asked Ogunsula “about the contents of her pockets or if she had any weapons or drugs on her, or anything that could cut him.” Id. “She replied no, ” and again asked the officer “what this was about.” Id. The officer informed plaintiff that “there was an active warrant out for her arrest.” Id. Plaintiff then asked the officer for information regarding the underlying charges. ECF 1 at 4. At first, he said only that “you know what the warrant is for.” Id. However, plaintiff “was totally flabbergasted.” Id. The officer searched plaintiff and then handcuffed her, claiming “she had stolen the car.” Id. And, after Ogunsula inquired further, the officer indicated that the warrant for her arrest was issued in June 2017. Id.[4] Plaintiff asserts that she knew then that “the charges were false.” Id.
By this time, two other white officers arrived on the scene. Id. Warrenfeltz then “preceded [sic] to begin putting her in [his] car.” Id. At this time Ogunsula “complained that the handcuffs were too tight” and were “cutting the skin on her hands, ” and she asked Warrenfeltz to loosen the handcuffs. Id. He complied, but only after one of the other officers suggested he should do so. Id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial