Bethel v. Rodriguez
Civil Action No. 2020-1940
| D.D.C. | Mar 31, 2022Background
- July 19, 2019: Plaintiff Larry Bethel bought an air conditioner at Home Depot; Asset Protection Specialist Nelson Benton monitored him and later reported the purchase as theft to MPD despite allegedly available video showing a purchase and replacement unit.
- MPD Officer Jose Rodriguez obtained an arrest warrant based on Benton’s report; officers went to Bethel’s home on August 20, 2019; Bethel later turned himself in but was not formally served and was not held overnight.
- Bethel alleges resulting emotional and physical harm (including PTSD) and filed a 21‑count complaint against Rodriguez, MPD, Benton, and Home Depot asserting §1983 and common‑law claims including malicious prosecution, assault, NIED, and IIED.
- Rodriguez moved to dismiss for untimely service and, alternatively, for failure to state claims (malicious prosecution, assault, NIED, IIED). Benton moved to dismiss several claims (§1983 Fourth Amendment, malicious prosecution, IIED).
- The court denied Rodriguez’s dismissal motion for untimely service, granting a retroactive extension under Rule 4(m), granted Rodriguez’s partial motion to dismiss Counts Seven (malicious prosecution), Ten (NIED), and Eleven (IIED), but denied dismissal of Count Eight (assault). The court granted Benton’s partial motion, dismissing Counts Three (§1983), Four/Seven (malicious prosecution), and Eleven (IIED) as to Benton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timely service on Rodriguez (Rule 4(m)) | Bethel says pandemic and MPD evasive tactics impeded service | Rodriguez says service was untimely and no good cause shown | Court denied dismissal, granted retroactive extension (no prejudice shown) |
| Assault claim vs Rodriguez (Count Eight) | Rodriguez’s warrant caused imminent apprehension of contact; Rodriguez’s failure to investigate rendered the threat unlawful | Rodriguez contends Bethel wasn’t assaulted by him and qualified privilege protects officers | Court denied dismissal; assault claim survives for now (motion underdeveloped; factual plausibility exists) |
| Malicious prosecution, NIED, IIED vs Rodriguez (Counts Seven, Ten, Eleven) | Bethel alleged lack of probable cause and emotional harm from warrant and police action | Rodriguez argues same grounds dismissed against MPD; insufficient allegations | Court granted dismissal of these counts against Rodriguez (claims parallel those dismissed as to MPD) |
| §1983 Fourth Amendment claim vs Benton (Count Three) | Benton set events in motion and allegedly was a commissioned special police officer | Benton argues he is a private actor not acting under color of state law | Court dismissed §1983 claim against Benton for failure to plead state action |
| Malicious prosecution vs Benton (Counts Four & Seven) | Benton initiated criminal proceeding by reporting theft | Benton argues no underlying prosecution or information was filed | Court dismissed malicious prosecution claims (no allegation an information or prosecution was ever filed) |
| IIED vs Benton (Count Eleven) | Bethel claims Benton’s report caused severe emotional distress and Benton knew plaintiff was vulnerable | Benton says report does not rise to extreme/outrageous conduct required for IIED | Court dismissed IIED as to Benton (conduct not sufficiently outrageous; no special susceptibility pleaded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions not assumed true)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§1983 requires action under color of state law)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (state‑action test for private parties acting with state aid)
- Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494 (malicious prosecution actionable under §1983 as an unreasonable seizure)
- DeWitt v. District of Columbia, 43 A.3d 291 (elements of malicious prosecution under D.C. law)
- Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216 (filing of an information is critical event for malicious prosecution liability)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 412 A.2d 948 (assault/force in arrest context; excessive force standard)
- Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Mann, 150 A.3d 1213 (elements of IIED in D.C.)
- Mann v. Castiel, 729 F. Supp. 2d 191 (district court discretion in extending service deadline; balancing prejudice/judicial economy)