Robinson v. Lioi
| Decision Date | 30 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. CCB-12-192 |
| Parties | CARLIN ROBINSON, ET AL. v. DANIEL A. LIOI, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This case arises from the November 2008 murder of Veronica Williams ("Ms. Williams") by her husband, Cleaven Lawrence Williams, Jr. ("Mr. Williams"). Mr. Williams stabbed Ms. Williams outside a Baltimore court following that court's grant of her request for a protective order against Mr. Williams. Although Ms. Williams had filed assault charges against Mr. Williams several weeks earlier, the Baltimore City Police Department ("BCPD") did not serve the arrest warrant on him. Carlin Robinson ("Ms. Robinson"), as Guardian and Next Friend of Ms. Williams's children, and Eunice Graves ("Ms. Graves"), Ms. Williams's mother (collectively, "the plaintiffs"), initially filed this civil suit against Mr. Williams, the BCPD, and Daniel A. Lioi ("Lioi"), a Deputy Major of the BCPD's Eastern District. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after this court dismissed their claims against the BCPD, adding as a defendant Melvin Russell ("Russell"), a BCPD Major. The plaintiffs alleged that due to their prior relationship with Mr. Williams, Russell and Lioi departed from normal procedures in serving the arrest warrant, thereby enabling Mr. Williams to remain free at the time he killed his wife.
The plaintiffs have asserted claims against defendants for violating Ms. Williams's due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and for conspiring to violate Ms. Williams's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. They also have asserted state law tort claims for wrongful death, survival action, battery, gross negligence, reckless endangerment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, common law conspiracy, conversion, fraud, and intentional misrepresentation. Now pending are Lioi's and Russell's Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 144; ECF No. 146), plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Lioi's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 153), and Lioi's Cross-Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 166). The motions have been fully briefed, and no oral argument is necessary. See Local R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' Motion to Strike will be denied, Lioi's Cross-Motion to Modify Scheduling Order will be granted, and defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment will be granted.
The uncontested facts are as follows. Mr. and Ms. Williams lived with their three young children in Baltimore, Maryland. (Pl. Opp'n at p. 5, ECF No. 175-1). Mr. Williams served as the president of the Greater Greenmount Community Association. (Russell Mot. Summ. J. at p. 7, ECF No. 144-1).1 It was in this capacity that Mr. Williams first met Russell and Lioi; their interactions were limited to joint participation in several "community meetings" and "community walks." (Id.) On Sunday, November 9, 2008, Ms. Williams filed for and was granted a protective order against Mr. Williams for "second-degree assault and unauthorized removal of property arising out of an October incident where Mr. Williams assaulted her by pinning her down and using a pair of scissors to cut off her hair." (Id. at p. 5-6). A warrant was then issuedfor Mr. Williams's arrest in connection with the October incident. (Arrest Warrant, ECF No. 144-3, Ex. 1). At approximately 11:30 p.m. on Sunday, November 9, 2008, BCPD Officer Jose Arroyo, following instructions from a dispatcher, picked up the arrest warrant from the Court Commissioner. (Russell Mot. Summ. J. at p. 6, ECF No. 144-1). Despite the fact that arrest warrants are generally first brought to "central records" for logging unless the warrant requires "immediate service" or the subject of the warrant is in custody (Arroyo Dep. 47:6-19, ECF No. 175-8, Ex. 6; ECF No. 174-12, Ex. 10),2 neither of which was the case here, Officer Arroyo returned to the Eastern District with the warrant without first stopping at "central records." (Id. at 58:22-59:8). While it is possible Officer Arroyo bypassed bringing the warrant to "central records" upon the orders of a superior officer, Officer Arroyo does not recall if Russell, Lioi, or any other superior officer issued any such order. (Arroyo Dep. 47:6-20, 49:11-54:2, ECF No. 175-8, Ex. 6). Officer Arroyo had no further involvement with the arrest warrant or with Mr. Williams, Russell, or Lioi after bringing the warrant to the Eastern District. Over the next several days, officers may have attempted to serve the warrant on Mr. Williams by "turning up" at his residence; if these "turn-ups" were indeed occurring, however, officers were unsuccessfulin locating Mr. Williams and serving the warrant.3 (Internal Incident Report, ECF No. 175-10, Ex. 8).
Russell eventually learned about the warrant on or about Monday, November 10, 2008. (Russell Dep. 69:11-70:22, ECF No. 175-4, Ex. 2). On that day, Mr. Williams sent the following text to Mr. Russell: "Call me, major." (Mr. Williams's Texts at p. 5, ECF No. 175-6, Ex. 4). Two days later, on Wednesday, November 12, 2008, around 3:20 p.m., Mr. Williams texted Russell regarding turning himself in, stating: (Id. at p. 6). At deposition, Mr. Williams explained that he wanted to turn himself in on Tuesday after speaking with his lawyers, who advised "him not to turn [him]self in on a . . . Friday or Monday." (Mr. Williams Dep. 36:9-37:15, ECF No. 144-8, Ex. 6). Later that Wednesday afternoon, Russell informed Lioi that Mr. Williams had an arrest warrant out for "common assault." (Lioi Dep. 79:1-81:22, ECF No. 174-3, Ex. 1). Russell informed Lioi that Mr. Williams was scheduled to turn himself in the next day, Thursday, November 13, 2008, at 9:00 p.m., and asked if Lioi could be present. (Id. at 82:2-14). Russell made this request because he was working the day shift from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Lioi was covering the night shift, which typically ran from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. at night. (Id. at 80:18-81:2).
On Thursday, November 13, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Mr. Williams sent Russell a text stating: (Mr. Williams's Texts at p. 7, ECF No. 175-6, Ex. 4). In response, Russell replied: "K." (Id.) At this time, Russell did not inform Lioithat he was in contact with Mr. Williams. (Lioi Dep. 264:10-267:2, ECF No. 174-3, Ex. 1). This 1:00 p.m. text exchange occurred roughly eight hours before Mr. Williams eventually turned himself in at the Eastern District at 9:00 p.m. When asked at deposition regarding this text exchange, Russell indicated his belief that Mr. Williams was referencing his intent to "com[e] to the station" to turn himself in during the time Russell was working. (Russell Dep. 210:17-21, ECF No. 175-4, Ex. 2). Specifically, Russell stated he "didn't meet [Mr. Williams] or make any arrangement to meet [Mr. Williams] outside of [Mr. Williams] turning himself in," and that Mr. Williams must have "never show[n] up" around 1:15 p.m. as suggested in the text message. (Id. at 214:11-215:2, 210:17-21).
At approximately 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, 2008, Mr. Williams arrived at the Eastern District to turn himself in. (Russell Mot. Summ. J. at p. 11, ECF No. 144-1; Robinson Opp'n at p. 10, ECF No. 175-1). Mr. Williams stated at deposition that he went to the Eastern District that night believing he would be incarcerated and released the following morning on Friday, November 14, 2008. (Mr. Williams Dep. 42:21-43:13, ECF No. 144-8, Ex. 6). When Mr. Williams arrived, Lioi and another officer inquired with "central records" regarding Mr. Williams's arrest warrant because that is where warrants generally are stored. (Lioi Dep. 115:12-22, ECF No. 174-3, Ex. 1). Central records, however, did not have a copy of the warrant because Officer Arroyo had brought it directly to the Eastern District without first stopping at central records. After checking with central records, Lioi made various inquiries to the commissioner's office, the sheriff's office, and the North Avenue courthouse to locate the warrant. (Id. at 116:5-117:5). After a period of time,4 realizing that central booking would notaccept Mr. Williams without a warrant, and acknowledging the warrant might not be located in a timely manner, Lioi allowed Mr. Williams "to leave [the station] with the agreement that he would come back" once the warrant was located. (Russell Dep. 115:1-5, ECF No. 175-4, Ex. 2). The warrant was eventually located "a little after midnight," on Friday, November 14, 2008, in the patrol car of Officer Adrienne Byrd, who had attempted to serve the warrant during the previous shift. (Sgt. Todd Tugya Aff. ¶¶ 4-5, ECF No. 144-12, Ex. 10). Despite finding the warrant the morning of Friday, November 14, 2008, Russell and Lioi authorized Mr. Williams to turn himself in on Tuesday, November 18, 2008. (Lioi Dep. 221:19-223:17, ECF No. 174-3, Ex. 1).
On Friday, November 15, 2008, Lioi issued a letter, at Mr. Williams's request, explaining that although Mr. Williams had been "very cooperative and willing to turn himself in," he was not ultimately arrested because the police did not have his warrant on file. (Lioi Dep. 228:1-18, ECF No. 174-3, Ex. 1; see also ECF No. 175-11, Ex. 9). Later, on Sunday, November 16, 2008, Mr. Williams informed Lioi that there was a separate assault warrant from March 7, 2003, for a Maryland resident named "Cleaven Williams." (Lioi Dep. 228:19-229:2, ECF No. 174-3, Ex. 1). At Mr. Williams's request, Lioi issued a second letter indicating this earlier warrant for a "Cleaven Williams" "is very limited and should not be considered to be [Mr. Williams] based on the name alone."5 (Id. at 234:10-235:16; see also ECF No. 175-12, Ex. 10). These letters, according to Mr. Williams, were requested from Lioi because Mr. Williams's lawyers told himthey would be "beneficial" to obtain. (Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial