Brown v. Belt
2:15-cv-11549
S.D.W. VaApr 15, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Dan Brown sued multiple county and state law-enforcement defendants over two arrests: a May 22, 2015 DUI stop and a January 15, 2016 arrest for burglary-related offenses.
- Surviving claims against state defendants (Troopers Demaske, McFeeley, and Colonel Smithers) included ADA/Rehabilitation Act discrimination (Count 2), negligent training/supervision (Count 4), § 1983 Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment and retaliation claims (Counts 5, 12, 13), state wrongful arrest (Counts 7, 8), and IIED (Count 16).
- The State Defendants moved for summary judgment; plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw and plaintiff failed to respond to dispositive motions or appear at a hearing.
- Court found plaintiff failed to establish disability for ADA/Rehab Act claims and dismissed related claims against Colonel Smithers; plaintiff also provided no evidence of supervisory negligence or knowledge by Smithers.
- Trooper McFeeley’s January 15, 2016 arrest was supported by probable cause (based on facts in the record), so McFeeley received qualified immunity for the § 1983 retaliation claim and summary judgment on the state wrongful arrest and IIED claims arising from that arrest.
- All claims against Trooper Demaske arising from the May 22, 2015 DUI stop were dismissed with prejudice for failure to identify any specific unlawful conduct or supporting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown is a "disabled" person under ADA/Rehabilitation Act for May 22, 2015 stop | Brown alleged disability-based discrimination and failure to accommodate | Defendants argued Brown failed to show he met statutory definition of disability | Court: No evidence of disability; ADA/Rehab claims dismissed |
| Whether Colonel Smithers is liable for negligent training/supervision (state law) | Brown alleged Smithers failed to train/supervise re: ADA requirements | Smithers pointed to absence of evidence linking him to Demaske’s actions or training failures | Court: No evidence of supervision/training failures; summary judgment for Smithers |
| Whether Trooper McFeeley violated § 1983 via retaliatory January 15, 2016 arrest (qualified immunity) | Brown claimed arrest was retaliation for filing suit | McFeeley argued he had probable cause to arrest (burglary) and thus qualified immunity | Court: Probable cause existed; McFeeley entitled to qualified immunity; § 1983 retaliation claim dismissed |
| Whether IIED and state false arrest claims survive for January 15, 2016 arrest | Brown alleged extreme and outrageous conduct and unlawful detention | McFeeley: arrest supported by probable cause; conduct not outrageous | Court: Probable cause defeats false arrest and IIED claims related to Jan. 15 arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment/genuine issue standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (personal involvement required for § 1983 supervisory liability)
- Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791 (4th Cir. supervisory liability framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (no clearly established right to be free from retaliatory arrest supported by probable cause)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (probable cause supports warrantless felony arrest)
- United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360 (probable cause definition for arrests)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state and official-capacity defendants not "persons" under § 1983)
- Philyaw v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 633 S.E.2d 8 (elements of IIED under West Virginia law)