Brown v. Fogle
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120066
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff L. Olivia Brown, proceeding pro se, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and DC tort law for a Fourth Amendment search, assault, and IIED.
- Plaintiff contends that on March 29, 2010 CFSA social workers Salaam and Fogle and MPD officers arrived at her home regarding alleged child supervision.
- Six MPD officers allegedly demanded entry, and Brown and her children exited the home and were coerced back inside without a warrant.
- Plaintiff alleges the social workers and officers searched the residence and questioned residents about living quarters, clothing, and food without consent and without exigent circumstances.
- Defendants' version traces events to a prior CFSA in-home services engagement beginning May 24, 2009, with a March 2010 investigation; on March 29, 2010, no one answered the door, the parties spoke, and Brown allegedly consented to entry, allowing a tour and interviews.
- Brown seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief; the court later resolves claims against certain defendants and defers others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 claims against Gerald and Lanier in their individual capacity survive. | Brown alleges personal involvement by Gerald and Lanier in the search/entry. | No personal involvement pled; respondeat liability inappropriate. | Dismissed against Gerald and Lanier in their individual capacity. |
| Whether official-capacity § 1983 claims against the District/officials survive. | District policies caused constitutional violations by defendants. | No identified policy or custom supporting liability. | Dismissed official-capacity § 1983 claims against the District and officials. |
| Whether the individual defendants are protected by qualified immunity at this stage. | Conduct violated Fourth Amendment rights; not clearly reasonable. | Qualified immunity should shield non-violative conduct absent evidence. | Denied without prejudice to a later summary judgment motion; not resolved on the pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims, not mere conclusory allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required for claims)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction for pro se filings)
- Simpkins v. District of Columbia Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (§ 1983 personal involvement requirement)
- Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (U.S. 2011) (official policy liability requires actual policy or widespread practice)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity prong in any order)
- Atherton v. District of Columbia Off. of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (article on qualified immunity sequencing and discretion)
- Graham v. Davis, 880 F.2d 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (limits on respondeat superior for § 1983 claims)
- Good v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989) (searches of home without consent, warrant, or exigent circumstances)