Singh v. Dist. of Columbia

Decision Date08 July 2014
Docket NumberCivil Action No.: 10–1615 RC
Citation55 F.Supp.3d 55
PartiesMahinder Singh, Plaintiff, v. District of Columbia et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

John Felix Pressley, Jr., Law Office of John F. Pressley, Jr., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Wayne C. Beyer, Kimberly Matthews Johnson, Shermineh C. Jones, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Re Document Nos.: 31, 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Dismissing Unnamed John and Jane DOE Officers as Defendants; Granting Plaintiff's motion to Amend the Statement of Material Facts in Dispute

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mahinder Singh brings suit against District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Officer Raj Dohare, unnamed other MPD officers (the “John and Jane Doe Officers”), and the District of Columbia (the District), asserting individual and municipal liability claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, as well as claims for the common law torts of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), and abuse of process. Before the Court is the District's motion for partial summary judgment seeking the following relief: dismissal and/or summary judgment in favor of the John and Jane Doe Officers on all counts; summary judgment on the torts of malicious prosecution, IIED, and abuse of process as to the District's vicarious liability for the alleged conduct of the John and Jane Doe Officers; and summary judgment as to the District's municipal liability under Section 1983.1

For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the District summary judgment regarding its vicarious liability for the IIED tort allegedly committed by all John and Jane Doe Officers and the abuse of process tort allegedly committed by all John and Jane Doe Officers except for Officer Myisha McConaghey. The Court will deny the District summary judgment as to its vicarious liability for the abuse of process tort allegedly committed by Officer McConaghey. Finally, the Court will deny the District summary judgment as to its municipal liability under Section 1983 on the theory of “deliberate indifference,” but the Court will grant the District summary judgment under Section 1983 on the theory of “custom or practice.”

II. BACKGROUND

Singh is a Washington, DC taxicab driver of Indian descent. See Pl.'s Mot. Amend. State. Mat. Facts in Dispute (“Pl.'s Mot. Amend.”), ECF No. 36–1, at ¶ 2 (Singh Aff.). Sometime in early 2009, Singh was introduced to Raj Dohare, a MPD officer from the same region in northern India as Singh. Id. ¶¶ 1–2. Singh's apartment was located within Officer Dohare's patrol service area and near the police station, and Singh and the officer quickly became friends. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–3, Ex. 1 at 8 (Singh Dep.); ECF No. 31–4, Ex. 2 at 11–12 (Dohare Dep.). During this time, Officer Dohare often stopped by Singh's apartment to socialize, sometimes during work hours; the officer also visited the apartment when Singh was not home to eat meals or watch television because he was given a key. See Pl.'s Mot. Amend., ECF No. 36–1, at ¶¶ 4, 7 (Singh Aff.); Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–3, Ex. 1 at 7–8 (Singh Dep.). Officer Dohare was joined at times by other MPD officers when he visited Singh's apartment. See Pl.'s Mot. Amend., ECF No. 36–1, at ¶ 4 (Singh Aff.). Singh also visited Officer Dohare's house in Virginia on a few occasions. See id. ¶ 6.

The relationship between Singh and Officer Dohare quickly soured. In March 2009, Officer Dohare and another officer were at Singh's apartment when Singh used mild profanity during a conversation. See id. ¶ 10. Singh's use of profanity in front of the officers angered Officer Dohare. See id. What came next was a flurry of traffic stops and tickets issued to Singh in the ensuing months by Officer Dohare and another MPD officer, Officer Myisha McConaghey. Every ticket Singh received from these officers during this period of time ultimately was dismissed on appeal.

The first traffic citation at issue occurred on April 2, 2009, when Singh was issued a Notice of Infraction (“NOI”) for excessive idling by an officer who is not identified in the record. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–5, Ex. 3 (NOI 585116140 and Hearing Record). A hearing examiner for the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Adjudication Services dismissed the ticket on May 24, 2009, when the unnamed officer failed to submit a copy of the ticket to the DMV within the time required by law. See id. Ten days later, on April 12, Singh was issued a citation by Officer Dohare for illegal parking in a bus zone. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–6, Ex. 4 (NOI 585090122 and Hearing Record). A DMV hearing examiner dismissed this ticket on May 26, 2009, crediting Singh's claims that he never received the citation and that Officer Dohare was retaliating against him by issuing “bogus tickets.” Id.

Next, on April 20, 2009, Singh was pulled over and issued a traffic ticket by Officer Dohare for failure to signal. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–7, Ex. 6 (NOI 583976444 and Hearing Record). Once again, a DMV hearing examiner dismissed the citation. See id. Singh reiterated his claim at the hearing that Officer Dohare was harassing him. See id. Also during this traffic stop, Officer Dohare requested assistance to administer a field sobriety test to Singh at the scene, which Singh easily passed. See ECF No. 32, Ex. 5 (OPC Complaint No. 09–0316).

On July 19, 2009, Singh was stopped by Officer McConaghey and issued traffic tickets for obstructed tags and an improper turn. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 8, Ex. 7 (NOI 583961254, NOI 583961243, and Hearing Record). As with previous citations, a DMV hearing examiner dismissed these tickets on appeal when the officer failed to appear. See id. Finally, the last traffic stop in which Singh was driving occurred on August 1, 2009. During this stop, Singh was issued tickets by Officer McConaghey for obstructed tags, parking abreast (i.e., double parking), and parking in a no parking zone. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–9, Ex. 8 (NOI 581471645, NOI 581471656, and NOI 584839485, and Hearing Record). A DMV hearing examiner dismissed all three tickets on October 30, 2009. See id. At that hearing, Singh again asserted that he was being harassed by MPD officers. See id.

The interactions between Officer Dohare, Officer McConaghey, and Singh did not end with the August 1 traffic stop. Instead, the final event at issue occurred on August 4, 2009, just three days after the previous stop. On this date, Officer McConaghey initiated a traffic stop of a car in which Singh was the passenger. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–4, Ex. 2 at 10 (Dohare Dep.). Officer McConaghey radioed for backup, and Officer Dohare quickly responded to the scene because he only was a couple blocks away and the stop occurred within his patrol service area. See id. Once he arrived at the location of the stop, Officer Dohare ordered Singh to leave the area immediately; when Singh refused, Officer Dohare placed Singh under arrest. See id. at 15–16. The exact details of what transpired before, during, and after the arrest remain in dispute, but Singh eventually was charged with assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct, threats to do bodily harm, and failure to obey a lawful order of the police. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–12, Ex. 11 at 3 (United States v. Singh, D.C. Sup. Ct., 2009–CMD–16916, trial tr., Vol. III, May 26, 2010 (Singh, trial tr., Vol. III”)); see also ECF No. 31–10, Ex. 9 (Incident Report 09110502).

During the course of the traffic stops, dismissed tickets, and August 4 arrest, Singh submitted multiple complaints about Officer Dohare's alleged harassment, as well as about similar wrongful conduct by Officer McConaghey. On June 8, 2009, Singh filed a complaint with Officer Dohare's district supervisor regarding the April 20 traffic stop. See Def.'s Mot. Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 31–13, Ex. 12 (Incident Summary Sheet, No. 09003727). In the complaint, Singh stated that Officer Dohare was harassing him by issuing meritless traffic citations. See id. Singh also filed a formal report with the District of Columbia Office of Police Complaints (OPC) on June 9, 2009, complaining again that Officer Dohare made the April 20 traffic stop without cause and for the sole purpose of harassing him, rather than any legitimate law enforcement purpose. See ECF No. 32, Ex. 5 (OPC Complaint No. 09–0316). Following an investigation into this complaint, the OPC sustained Singh's allegations of harassment in a merits decision dated September 24, 2012. See id. The MPD then initiated an adverse employment action against Officer Dohare, and the officer received a penalty of one day suspended without pay, one day of leave forfeited, and one day held. See ECF No. 32–1, Ex. 13 (Commander's Resolution Conference Worksheet).

Singh later filed another report with the OPC about Officer Dohare, this time complaining that the officer unlawfully arrested him during the events on August 4, 2009.See ECF No. 32–2, Ex. 14 (OPC Complaint No. 09–0454, Findings of Fact and Merits Determination). The OPC sustained this complaint on August 7, 2013, stating on the record that Officer Dohare harassed Singh through his conduct surrounding the arrest. See id. at 8. In his affidavit, Singh asserts that he made several other complaints about Officer Dohare and Officer McConaghey. See Pl.'s Mot. Amend., ECF No. 36–1, at 8 (Singh Aff.). Specifically, Singh filed a report regarding Officer Dohare with the district supervisor on May 21, 2009. See id. Singh also submitted three additional complaints...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Dufur v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 24, 2018
    ...contrary, as this Court has repeatedly held, "a party may not amend his complaint through an opposition brief." Singh v. District of Columbia , 55 F.Supp.3d 55, 70 (D.D.C. 2014) ; see also Borda v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Criminal Div. , 245 F.Supp.3d 52, 57 (D.D.C. 2017) ; McManus v. Distri......
  • Doe v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 11, 2021
    ...retaliation theory is waived because she failed to present it in the second amended complaint. See Sai, 326 F.R.D. at 33 (citing Singh, 55 F. Supp. 3d at 70 ). And the allegations that are contained in the second amended complaint do not state a viable section 1981 claim against Borer or Go......
  • Hargraves v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 12–1459 (BAH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 22, 2015
    ...claim where comparatively lesser force was used than against the plaintiff here, Pl.'s Mem. at 11–12 (citing Singh v. District of Columbia, 55 F.Supp.3d 55, 66–68 (D.D.C.2014) ; Martin v. City of Philadelphia, No. Civ.A. 99–543, 2000 WL 1052150, at *16 (E.D.Pa. July 24, 2000) and Eres v. Cn......
  • Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • April 30, 2015
    ...raised exclusively in the First Amended Complaint was superseded and abandoned. SeeSingh v. District of Columbia,No. CV 10–1615, 55 F.Supp.3d 55, 70–71, 2014 WL 3057564, at *10 (D.D.C. July 8, 2014). Alternatively, when a legal malpractice claim fails, a breach of contract claim that relies......
  • 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