Cromartie v. District of Columbia
479 F. App'x 355
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Cromartie was arrested for disorderly conduct and misdemeanor assault on a police officer and later sued the District for false arrest, IIED, assault, and civil rights violations.
- At a status conference the district court set deadlines for the District to file for summary judgment and for Cromartie to oppose; Cromartie failed to file any opposition.
- The district court treated the District’s motion as conceded under Local Rule 7(b) and entered judgment for the District.
- The district court relied on the District’s stated facts, deemed admitted under D.D.C. Rule 7(h)(1) and Celotex, to determine the summary judgment motion.
- Conceded facts: two officers responded to loitering/drug-use report; Cromartie was belligerent, refused instructions, and loudly cursed at officers, creating probable cause for arrest.
- Under the conceded facts, probable cause defeats Cromartie’s false arrest and IIED claims, and the use of force during arrest was deemed ordinary coercion not excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was summary judgment proper on conceded facts? | Cromartie argues factual disputes precluded summary judgment. | District contends Cromartie failed to oppose and facts were conceded. | Yes; summary judgment proper on conceded facts. |
| Does probable cause defeat false arrest and IIED claims? | Arrests can be false despite probable cause if illegal conduct occurred. | Probable cause for arrest defeats false arrest and IIED as a matter of law. | Probable cause defeats false arrest and IIED. |
| Was the force used during arrest excessive? | Cromartie alleges excessive force beyond ordinary coercion. | The force used was ordinary coercion reasonable under the circumstances. | No excess; force was ordinary coercion given resistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167 (D.C.Cir.1977) (focal point is whether arresting officer was justified; privilege applies if justified)
- Kotsch v. Dist. of Columbia, 924 A.2d 1040 (D.C.2007) (probable cause defeats extreme or outrageous conduct claims)
- Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C.Cir.2004) (excuses for failure to monitor docket are insufficient; enforcing local rule)
- FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58 (D.C.Cir.1997) (district court has discretion to enforce local rules)
- Twelve John Does v. Dist. of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571 (D.C.Cir.1997) (where no response is used to support motion, court may rely on movant's facts)
- Wasserman v. Rodacker, 557 F.3d 635 (D.C.Cir.2009) (belligerence and disobedience can justify ordinary coercion in arrest)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ("the motion may be granted so long as the record shows the standard for summary judgment is satisfied")