Yaodong Ji v. City Of Raleigh

• Decision Date: 07 September 2010
• Docket Number: NO. COA09-1026,No. 08 CVS 5464,COA09-1026,08 CVS 5464
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: YAODONG JI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA; SUPERVISOR OF SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT, RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT; DONNA G. BEAN, Defendants-Appellants.

YAODONG JI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA;

SUPERVISOR OF SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT,

RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT;

DONNA G. BEAN, Defendants-Appellants.

NO. COA09-1026

No. 08 CVS 5464

North Carolina Court Of Appeals

Filed: 7 September 2010

Yaodong Ji, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Raleigh City Attorney Thomas A. McCormick by Deputy City Attorney Hunt K. Choi, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 18 May 2009 by Judge James E. Hardin, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 December 2009.

ERVIN, Judge.

Plaintiff Yaodong Ji appeals from an order entered by the trial court denying his motion for relief from an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. After careful consideration of the record in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court's order should be affirmed.

I. Factual Background

On 17 March 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the City of Raleigh, the Supervisor of the Special Victims Unit of the Raleigh Police Department, and Detective Donna G. Bean of the Raleigh Police Department. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserted that he had been arrested by officers of the Raleigh Police Department on 28 March 2005 for the alleged rape of his wife, Yan Sun, based on an investigation performed by Detective Bean. Plaintiff's complaint attempted to assert various claims against Detective Bean, the City of Raleigh, and the Supervisors of the Raleigh Police Department's Special Victims Unit arising from his arrest.

According to Plaintiff's complaint, Ms. Sun was a citizen of the People's Republic of China. Plaintiff and Ms. Sun met through an online dating website in 2002, after which Plaintiff applied for a visa that allowed Ms. Sun to visit the United States in February 2003 as Plaintiff's fiancee. At the conclusion of her visit, Ms. Sun did not wish to return to the People's Republic, so Plaintiff married her in March 2003. The marriage between Plaintiff and Ms. Sun was apparently not a happy one. According to Plaintiff, he had informed Ms. Sun in early 2005 that he wanted a divorce.

According to Plaintiff's complaint, Ms. "Sun made false statements on March 28, 2005[,] in [the] Emergency Room of WakeMed Center" to officers of the Raleigh Police Department to the effect that "Plaintiff had... [nonconsensual] intercourse with her and caused her vaginal tear at 2:00 [a.m.], March 26, 2005." In addition, Plaintiff alleged that, "[s]ince [Ms.] Sun's vaginal tear was fresh and there was no healing when Dr. Tascone did the exam at 9:40 [p.m.], March 28, 2005, the age of [her] vaginal tear did notmatch the time that [the] alleged event occurred (at 2:00 [a.m.], March 26, 2005)." Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that Detective Bean "did not verify the age of the vaginal tear" with the emergency room physician who examined Ms. Sun.

On the basis of these allegations, Plaintiff claimed that:

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

35. Under color of state law, Bean and Supervisors of Special Victims Unit, Raleigh Police Department, acting individually and in concert, initiated and continued criminal prosecution against Plaintiff on charges of second degree rape.

36. Bean and Supervisors of Special Victims Unit's actions were ignorant, malicious and evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

37. As result of this wrongful prosecution, Plaintiff was seized and deprived of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

....

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

....

42. On or about March 28, 2005, the Supervisory Defendants and, upon information and belief, other officials with final policymaking authority in the City of Raleigh and the Raleigh Police agreed that Bean would direct the Raleigh Police investigation into the allegations of rape, sexual assault made by Yan Sun.

43. Before and after Bean was given authority to direct the Raleigh Police investigation, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials with final

policymaking authority in the City of Raleigh and the Raleigh Police had actual or constructive knowledge that Bean did not have adequate experience or training to direct a complex criminal investigation.

44. In these circumstances, adequate scrutiny of Bean's ability, experience, and background would have made it plainly obvious to a reasonable policymaker that the decision to permit her to direct this investigation would lead to deprivations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

45. Nevertheless, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City of Raleigh and the Raleigh Police Department allowed Bean to direct the investigation knowing, or with deliberate indifference to the likelihood, that their decision would result in a violations [sic] of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

46. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these policy decisions, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

....

49. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City of Raleigh and the Raleigh Police established a policy or custom encouraging Raleigh Police officers to target the alleged for selective enforcement of the criminal laws without doing their careful investigation.

50. It would have been plainly obvious to a reasonable policymaker that such conduct would lead to deprivations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

51. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City of Raleigh and theRaleigh Police nevertheless agreed to, approved, and ratified this unconstitutional conduct by Bean and their subordinates in Raleigh Police.

52. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these policy decisions, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

....

55. On or about March 28, 2005, Bean, with the acquiescence or approval of the Supervisory Defendants assumed direct responsibility for the police investigation into allegations of rape, sexual assault made by Yan Sun.

56. The Supervisory Defendants knew, or should have known about the shoddy police investigation based on Bean's limited experience and failed to take meaningful preventative or remedial action.

57. The Supervisory Defendants' actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

58. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

....

PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

....

63. At the time of the event alleged above, Bean owed Plaintiff a duty to use due care with respect to the investigation of Sun's allegations.

64. At the time Bean committed the acts and omissions alleged above, she knew or should have known that she violated or departed from Raleigh Police policies and procedures, violated or departed from professional standards of conduct, violated constitutional rights, and was likely to cause Plaintiff's harm.

65. In committing the aforementioned acts and/or omissions, Bean negligently breached said duties to use due care which directly and proximately resulted in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiff as alleged herein.

PLAINTIFF'S SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

....

67. At the time of the event alleged above, each of the Supervisory Defendants, and the City of Raleigh owed Plaintiff a duty to use due care in the hiring, training, supervision, discipline, and retention of Raleigh Police personnel, including the personnel involved in the investigation of Sun's claims.

68. The Supervisory Defendants negligently supervised Defendant Bean by assigning her to the police investigation into Sun's allegations, notwithstanding Bean's lack of prior experience in complex felony investigations.

69. The Supervisory Defendants negligently supervised Defendant Bean, failed to provide her with proper training, and failed to outline proper procedure to her in various respects relating to the appropriate conduct of criminal investigations, including determining when the alleged event occurred by investigating the age of the vaginal tear.

70. In committing the aforementioned acts or omissions, each Supervisory Defendant negligently breached said duty to use due care, which directly and proximatelyresulted in the injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein.

Plaintiff attached various documents as exhibits to his complaint, including the Raleigh Police Department incident report and supplemental report relating to Ms. Sun's allegations against him; the depositions of Dr. Arthur H. Tascone, the emergency room physician who examined Ms. Sun, and Detective Bean, both taken in a separate civil action between Plaintiff and Ms. Sun; and an article derived from a website concerning the topic of "wound healing," as exhibits to his complaint.¹ As a result of Defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct, Plaintiff requested the court to award compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees, the costs, and any other appropriate relief.

On 1 April 2008, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(4), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). In seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, Defendants alleged that:

2. Although the causes of action that plaintiff wishes to assert in his Complaint are unclear, a liberal reading of plaintiff[']s Complaint suggests potential pleadings for (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim premised on malicious prosecution and/or false arrest; (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim premised on failure to train or supervise; (3) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim premised on negligent investigation and/or selective enforcement; (4) a [42] U.S.C. §

...