Sutton v. Billings

Decision Date26 May 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No. ELH-16-3364
PartiesNEAL SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN BILLINGS, et al. Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Neal Sutton, a firefighter and emergency medical technician with the District of Columbia Fire & EMS Department ("DCFEMS"), filed suit against several defendants, including Anne Arundel County, Maryland ("A.A. County" or the "County"); the District of Columbia ("D.C." or the "District"); and his former wife, Susan Billings. ECF 1.1 In an Amended Complaint (ECF 14), Sutton has alleged a hodgepodge of claims.

In particular, Sutton alleges that the District discriminated against him on the basis of his marital status, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.11 (a) and (b)2; suspended him from his job, without providing him with notice and the opportunity for a hearing; and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. ("ADA"). ECF 14, ¶¶ 32-43. Furthermore, Sutton alleges a host of claims against A.A. County under Maryland lawand 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from alleged misconduct on the part of the A.A. County Police Department and its officers. Id. ¶¶ 44-67. Plaintiff's State law claims against A.A. County include, inter alia, defamation. Id. ¶ 64. And, Sutton alleges various Maryland law claims against Billings, including harassment and intimidation. See id. ¶¶ 10-31. Sutton seeks a total of about $34,000,000 in actual and punitive damages. See ECF 14.

Now pending is the District's motion to dismiss (ECF 18), which is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 18-1 (collectively, "D. C. Motion"). Plaintiff has responded in opposition (ECF 22, "Opposition") and the District replied. ECF 25. Also pending is the County's motion to dismiss (ECF 19), which is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 19-1 (collectively, "A.A. Motion"). Plaintiff responded in opposition (ECF 28, "Response") and the County replied. ECF 29.3

The motions are fully briefed and no hearing is necessary to resolve them. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the motions with respect to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 and the ADA. And, I shall decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regard to plaintiff's claims under Maryland and D.C. law.

I. Factual Background4

Plaintiff is a full-time Firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) at the Washington, D.C. Fire & EMS Department.

On September 19, 2004, plaintiff married Susan Smith. ECF 14, ¶ 5.5 After their marriage, Sutton and Smith moved to Crownsville, Maryland. Id. ¶ 6.

Beginning in 2009, Sutton began to notice changes in Billings's behavior and states that she became "generally suspicious." ECF 14, ¶ 7. Plaintiff noticed that Billings appeared to have memory lapses and mood swings. Id. Dr. A. Rosen examined Billings and informed her that she "appeared to suffer from a dysthymic disorder." Id.

The Suttons' relationship began to deteriorate, resulting in a four-month separation in the second half of 2010. Id. ¶ 8. The Suttons were granted an absolute divorce by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on October 16, 2014. Id. ¶ 9.

At approximately 1:10 p.m. on December 31, 2015, while plaintiff was driving in Anne Arundel County, he noticed that Billings was following him. Id. ¶ 11. Billings followed plaintiff to a Target store in Glen Burnie, and parked one row away from him. Id. ¶ 14. After Sutton noticed that Billings had followed him inside the store, he left and drove away. Id. Sutton then saw an Anne Arundel County police officer sitting in a nearby parking lot. Id. ¶ 15. Sutton approached the officer and told him that Billings was following him. Id. But, the officer told him to contact the Baltimore City Police Department. Id. After Sutton "protested," the officer received a call for service, and told Sutton that he (Sutton) could either wait for the officer to return, or contact the police in either the County or Baltimore City. Id.

While driving home in Baltimore City, Sutton passed two Baltimore City police officers, and told them what had happened and that he feared for his safety. Id. ¶ 17. The two police officers told Sutton that there was nothing that they could do for him. Id.

On November 1, 2015, Sutton noticed that Billings was again following him. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. After attempting to evade her, Sutton pulled into the parking lot for the Glen Burnie division of the District Court for Anne Arundel County. Id. ¶ 19. Billings pulled within one foot of Sutton's rear bumper and then left. Id.

On November 10, 20156, while Sutton was driving on Maryland Route 175, Sutton noticed Billings and "John C. Tubman" driving in the opposite direction. Id. ¶ 20. According to Sutton, Billings was "embracing" Tubman and "leaned her head near Tubman and kissed his cheek." Id. Then, during the early morning hours of November 15, 2015, Billings parked in front of Sutton's home in Baltimore, honked her horn twice, and drove off. Id. ¶ 21. She then returned several minutes later, honked her horn, and drove off again. Id. As a result of Billings's actions, plaintiff "sought and received advice and treatment of mental health professionals and physicians." Id. ¶ 23; see id. ¶¶ 24-25.

Plaintiff states, without any context, that in the fall of 2012,7 Fire Chief Donlon "told Plaintiff that he should lose his wife or lose his job." Id. ¶ 37.

On or about June 29, 2015, the Chief of the DCFEMS, Gregory Dean, "caused a Notice of Intent to Suspend to be mailed to Plaintiff." Id. ¶ 33. But, the Notice of Intent to Suspend ("Notice") was sent to Billings's home in Crownsville, despite the fact that Sutton had moved out. Id. Plaintiff claims that he never received the Notice. Id. The Notice provided that the reason for the proposed suspension was that Sutton had violated a protective order issued by theDistrict Court of Maryland for A.A. County. Id. ¶ 34. Thereafter, plaintiff was suspended for twelve work hours in August 2015, resulting in lost wages of $418.56. Id. ¶ 36.

On or about March 29, 2012, at the direction of former Police Chief Kevin Davis, Sgt. Cox and Officer Heineke of the Anne Arundel Police Department "told Susan K. Billings . . . and representatives of the Washington D.C. Fire & EMS [D]epartment that Plaintiff is 'paranoid, delusional and dangerous.'" Id. ¶ 63. At some point after January 6, 2013, Detective Overbay "filed" a criminal proceeding against Sutton, alleging that he had trespassed at Billings's home, despite the fact that she had asked Sutton to come over. Id. ¶ 59. Sutton states that, as a result, he was "detained and forced to submit to lengthy and troublesome criminal proceedings in the state courts." Id.

Then, on or about January 2, 2014,8 plaintiff entered the Western District office of the A.A. County Police Department and asked to file a police report concerning threatening telephone calls that he had received. Id. ¶ 49.9 Officer Everett, who assisted Sutton, refused to allow him to file a police report, and informed him that there may be an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Id. But, Officer Everett did not attempt to arrest Sutton. Id.

Thereafter, on or about August 10, 2014, Cpl. McDermott of the Anne Arundel Police Department hosted a meeting that included Sutton, two members of the "Anne Arundel Crisis Intervention Team," two Baltimore City police officers, and a personal friend of plaintiff. Id. ¶53. During this meeting, plaintiff discussed the threatening telephone calls that he had received after an arson at his Crownsville home,10 and his claims that Billings had been harassing him. Id. ¶ 54. At the end of the meeting, J. Corbin of the Anne Arundel Crisis Intervention Team told plaintiff to "put away his papers, change his telephone numbers and 'start a new life.'" Id. Corbin also told Sutton that Chief Davis "did not want to hear about Plaintiff's problems again." Id.

According to plaintiff, on or about September 27, 2014, "Anne Arundel County Police Chief Kevin Davis told D.C. Fire and EMS Chief Eugene Jones . . . that Plaintiff 'is paranoid, delusional, suicidal and homicidal and that Plaintiff possessed firearms and that he was threatening to kill people.'" Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff disputes these assertions. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. Then, on or about June 24, 2016, an A.A. County Police Officer in a marked patrol vehicle "parked in front of Plaintiff's residence . . . in Baltimore City." Id. ¶ 65. The officer waived at plaintiff "for approximately one full minute" and then drove away." Id.

II. Standard of Review

A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom. McBurney v. Young, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1709 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It provides that a complaint must contain a"short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl., Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

To survive a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) ("Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ." (citation omitted)); see also Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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