Prince v. Dist. of Columbia

• Decision Date: 05 December 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-746 (JEB)
• Parties: DARRELL PRINCE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

DARRELL PRINCE, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-746 (JEB)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 5, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this pro se action, Plaintiff Darrell Prince alleges that police officers used excessive force in unlawfully seizing and then arresting him in November 2021 after his eviction from the Martin Luther King Jr. Library here in Washington. His Amended Complaint names the District of Columbia and multiple individuals as Defendants. The District alone now moves to dismiss. As Prince has not sufficiently pled the city's municipal liability or established his other claims, the Court will grant the Motion.

I. Background

The Court at this stage sets forth the facts as pled in the Amended Complaint, assuming them to be true. Prince alleges that on the afternoon of November 16, 2021, a library staffer engaged loudly with two patrons at the library about their eating food on the premises. See ECF No. 10 (Amended Complaint) at 8. Prince entered the controversy when he stood up and asked the staffer for “breathing room” on behalf of the patrons. Id. The staffer responded by ordering

1

Prince to his seat and stating that he and the other two patrons would be removed from the library. Id.

Summoned by the staffer, two Metropolitan Police Department officers then arrived on the scene to escort the three from the library. Id. Plaintiff “requested] some confirmation that there [was] some tangible offense [or] that [he] ha[d] violated some actual library policy.” Id. Officer Franklin (whose first name is not provided) did not know the offense that caused the ejection. Id. Regardless, Prince verbally agreed to leave, gathered his belongings, and started to exit. Id. The interaction did not end there, however.

Plaintiff paused after taking a few steps toward the door, which apparently caused Franklin to “immediately seize[] [Prince]'s arm, pushing [him] 20+ feet across the library floor, against [his] resistance.” Id. Prince asserts that Franklin then executed a takedown and wrestled him to the ground, resting his full weight on Plaintiff's back for several minutes. Id. at 8-9. Officer Williams (also without any first name), the other officer present, did not attempt to intervene or slow down Franklin. Id. at 9. After several exchanges in which Franklin ordered Prince to stop resisting and Prince responded that he was not doing so, Franklin picked up Plaintiff by his jacket and shook him violently back and forth. Id. Franklin then placed Prince under arrest and put him in handcuffs. Id. Prince asserts that the report of this incident did not mention use of force, which would have triggered further review. Id.

On March 17, 2022, Prince brought his initial Complaint against the District of Columbia Public Library and unknown agents of the city. See ECF No. 1 (Initial Complaint). He then filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading, against the District of Columbia, Public Library Staff, District of Columbia Public Library Legal Counsel, Officers Franklin and Williams, and assorted other individuals (named and unnamed) under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and

2

Eighth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Am. Compl. at 1-2, 5-6. Prince also asserts a conspiracy to deny rights via obstruction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) and 1986. Id. at 5. He also cites criminal statutes for aggravated assault, assault, false statements, and misprision of felony. Id. at 3-4. Prince seeks compensatory damages for pain, suffering, and humiliation, as well as medical expenses. Id. at 10-11. He also requests punitive damages and attorney fees and asks the Court to review the use of bans in the DCPL system and to refer this case criminally to the Department of Justice. Id. at 10-12. The District filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 28, 2022. See ECF No. 14 (Gov't MTD). Prince responded with a Motion for Summary Judgment as well as an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on August 19. See ECF No. 24 (Pl. Opp).

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In evaluating such a motion to dismiss, courts must “treat the complaint's factual allegations as true . . . and must grant plaintiff ‘the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570) - that is, the facts alleged in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

The Court need not accept as true “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286

3

(1986)), nor “inferences . . . unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.” Id. (quoting Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). And it may consider not only “the facts alleged in the complaint,” but also “any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint[,] and matters of which [courts] may take judicial notice.” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School, 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

III. Analysis

The Court separates Prince's claims into three categories - (1) constitutional violations, (2) conspiracy, and (3) criminal violations - and will address them in turn.

A. Constitutional Claims

Plaintiff invokes the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments in seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 creates liability for anyone who subjects or causes one to be subjected to deprivation of constitutional “rights, privileges, or immunities.” To state a claim under § 1983, Prince must allege a predicate constitutional violation. See Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. ...