Sheikh v. Dist. of Columbia

Decision Date05 January 2015
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 14–316 CKK
Citation77 F.Supp.3d 73
PartiesShahid Sheikh, Plaintiff v. District of Columbia, et al., Defendants
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

77 F.Supp.3d 73

Shahid Sheikh, Plaintiff
v.
District of Columbia, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 14–316 CKK

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed January 5, 2015


77 F.Supp.3d 76

Charles C. Parsons, Charles C. Parsons & Associates, Chtd., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

David A. Jackson, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Steven Michael Oster, Oster Law Firm, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR–KOTELLY, United States District Judge

This action arises from injuries that Plaintiff Shahid Sheikh suffered at the hands of individuals who are not parties to this action in a public space near several Alcohol Beverage Control (“ABC”) licensees in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff brought this action against several defendants in this Court: the District of Columbia; Metropolitan Police Department officers Nicole Spady and Gregory Curry (“Officer Defendants”); and three Alcohol Beverage Control licensed establishments (“ABC Establishment Defendants”), YFE, Inc. (operating 18th Street Lounge), HAK LLC (operating Midtown Lounge), and Inner Circle 1223, LLC (operating Dirty Martini Inn Bar).1 Essentially, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Spady and Officer Curry failed to prevent Plaintiff from being injured by third parties and asserts that the District of Columbia and the ABC Establishment Defendants are liable as well for the injuries that resulted. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and for violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the

77 F.Supp.3d 77

United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Specifically, Plaintiff asserts two section 1983 claims against the Officer Defendants (Count I, which alleges a failure to protect Plaintiff, and Count II, which alleges a conspiracy to cover up the failure to protect Plaintiff); a section 1983 claim against the District of Columbia (Count III); and a negligence claim against each defendant (Count IV).

The District of Columbia, the Officer Defendants, and YFE each move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Presently before the Court are the District of Columbia's [4] Motion to Dismiss, the Officer Defendants' [13] Motion to Dismiss, and YFE's [28] Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.3 Upon consideration of the pleadings,4 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS each motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that, with respect to each defendant, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court dismisses every claim against the District of Columbia, the Officer Defendants, and YFE. In addition, for the same reasons that the Court dismisses the negligence claim against YFE, the Court sua sponte dismisses the claims against the two bar defendants, HAK LLC and Inner Circle 1223, LLC, that have not entered an appearance. Because there are no claims remaining, the Court DISMISSES this action in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

For the purposes of these motions, the Court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations

77 F.Supp.3d 78

in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Court does “not accept as true, however, the plaintiff's legal conclusions or inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 315 (D.C.Cir.2014).

In the early morning hours of February 27, 2011, Plaintiff and his companions exited the Current Lounge in the 1200 block of Connecticut Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C. Am. Compl., Prelim. Statement of Facts at 4; see id. ¶ 1. Upon exiting the Current Lounge, Plaintiff and a companion were confronted by and threatened by several people who had exited a nearby ABC licensed establishment. Id. ¶ 7. Meanwhile, three ABC licensed establishments—YFE, Inc. (operating 18th Street Lounge), HAK LLC (operating Midtown Lounge), and Inner Circle 1223, LLC (operating Dirty Martini Inn Bar)—had arranged with the Metropolitan Police Department for a reimbursable detail, pursuant to D.C. Code § 25–798, that was ongoing at the time of these events. Id. ¶ 3. A reimbursable detail is “an assignment of MPD officers to patrol the surrounding area of an [ABC] establishment for the purpose of maintaining public safety, including the remediation of traffic congestion and the safety of public patrons, during their approach and departure from the establishment.” D.C. Code § 25–798. Officers Spady and Curry were assigned to the reimbursable detail, serving as uniformed police officers in Plaintiff's vicinity at the time when Plaintiff exited the Current Lounge. Am. Compl. ¶ 1; id. Prelim. Statement of Facts at 4. Plaintiff and his companion approached Officers Spady and Curry at their “duty station” and pointed out people lurking menacingly and asked the officers to protect Plaintiff and his companion from these assailants. Id. ¶ 8. Officers Spady and Curry allegedly refused Plaintiff's pleas for protection. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff was then assaulted by these would-be assailants and suffered severe permanent and painful injuries. Id. ¶ 11.

After the incident, on February 27, 2011, Officers Spady and Curry filed a police report without referencing any failure to intervene by the Officer Defendants. Id. ¶ 15; see District of Columbia's Supp. Mem., Ex. 1 at 1. Plaintiff made a written complaint to the Metropolitan Police Department, “pointing out the substandard conduct of Defendants Spady and Curry and their violations of his constitutional rights.” Am. Compl. ¶ 16. Plaintiff does not indicate when this complaint was submitted or to whom it was submitted; nor does Plaintiff provide a copy of the complaint. See id. It does not appear that this complaint corresponds to any of the police reports provided by the District of Columbia or that the complaint is referenced in those reports. See generally District of Columbia's Supp. Mem., Ex. 1. Subsequently, Officers Spady and Curry executed a supplemental report, which did not reference any failure to intervene by the officers. Am. Compl. ¶ 17. The District of Columbia has provided two reports that could match the description of the supplemental report in the Amended Complaint. The first is a “Supplement Report,” dated March 1, 2011, which states that Plaintiff visited the police station to report additional facts regarding the incident. See District of Columbia's Supp. Mem., Ex. 1 at 10. The second is a “Supplement Report,” dated March 10, 2011, which recounts the events surrounding the incident. See id., Ex. 1 at 13–17. Neither of these supplement reports references any actions by police officers before or during the incident. See id., Ex. 1 at 9–10, 13–17. Later, on April 3, 2013, Officer Spady testified in a criminal proceeding that she and Officer Curry had not refused Plaintiff's request to intervene and further

77 F.Supp.3d 79

testified that the officers had “thoroughly canvassed the zone” and “properly ruled out the presence of any person posing a risk of an imminent attack upon the Plaintiff.” Am. Compl., Prelim. Statement of Facts at 7, ¶ 18. Finally, the District of Columbia did not investigate any alleged wrongdoing by Officers Spady and Curry. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25. Plaintiff then filed this action in this Court.5

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The District of Columbia, the Officer Defendants, and YFE move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint on the grounds it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion [s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Rather, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations that, if accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider “the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint,” or “documents upon which the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies even if the document is produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint but by the defendant in a motion to dismiss.” Ward v. District of Columbia Dep't of Youth Rehab. Servs., 768 F.Supp.2d 117, 119 (D.D.C.2011) (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings section 1983 claims against the Officer Defendants and against the District of Columbia, as well as negligence claims against all of the defendants, including the three ABC Establishment Defendants. The Officer Defendants, the District of Columbia, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Kenley v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 14–1232 JEB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 13, 2015
    ...678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ); see also, e.g., Sheikh v. District of Columbia, No. 14–316, 77 F.Supp.3d 73, 85, 2015 WL 58830, at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2015) (plaintiff failed to state claim against District of Columbia where complaint provided “no mor......
  • Wells v. Hense
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • January 24, 2017
    ...156, 160–61 (D.D.C. 2015) ; Bell v. District of Columbia, 82 F.Supp.3d 151, 155–56 (D.D.C. 2015) ; Sheikh v. District of Columbia, 77 F.Supp.3d 73, 85 (D.D.C. 2015) ; Runnymede–Piper v. District of Columbia, 952 F.Supp.2d 52, 58 (D.D.C. 2013) ; Philogene v. District of Columbia, 864 F.Supp.......
  • Alinejad v. The Islamic Republic of Iran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 6, 2023
    ...... No. 19-cv-3599 (GMH) United States District Court, District of Columbia July 6, 2023 . .          . MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER . . . ... members of an injured victim” (internal citation. omitted) (quoting Sheikh v. Republic of Sudan , 485. F.Supp.3d 255, 270 (D.D.C. 2020))). “Although the. ......
  • Christie v. Islamic Republic of Iran
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 2, 2020
    ......Civil Action No. 19-1289 (BAH) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA July 2, 2020 Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell MEMORANDUM OPINION         This action arises ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT