Daulatzai v. State of Maryland, 556 F.Supp.3d 536

On Sept. 26, 2017 Dr. Anila Daulatzai was removed from Southwest Airlines Flight 1525 after crew and transit police expressed concern about her alleged severe dog allergy; she was physically removed while pregnant and a passenger video went viral.
MTA police arrested and charged Daulatzai; most charges were nolle prossed but she received probation before judgment for disorderly conduct.
Daulatzai (a non-white anthropologist) sued Southwest and the State of Maryland asserting federal and state claims: discrimination (§1981/§1983), malicious prosecution, negligence, false arrest/imprisonment, battery, and constitutional violations.
Defendants moved to dismiss; Plaintiff did not oppose the motions. The Court evaluated the motions on the merits and applied governing pleading standards.
The Court dismissed all claims: it held ADA statutory protections and preemption barred some claims, malicious prosecution failed because the prosecution did not terminate in her favor, Heck barred the federal §1983 challenge to the arrest/conviction, and state tort claims were barred for failure to satisfy MTCA administrative prerequisites.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal discrimination claim against airline is barred by airline safety discretion (49 U.S.C. §44902(b))	Daulatzai says removal was racially motivated and pretextual	Southwest says §44902(b) gives pilot discretion to remove a passenger for safety concerns	Court: Plaintiff failed to show pilot's decision was arbitrary; §44902(b) precludes the claim
Whether state-law negligence claim against airline is preempted by the ADA (49 U.S.C. §41713)	Daulatzai alleges negligent removal	Southwest contends ADA preempts state-law claims related to boarding/service decisions	Court: Negligence claim is preempted by the ADA
Viability of malicious prosecution claim against Southwest	Daulatzai alleges Southwest caused wrongful prosecution	Southwest argues preemption and other defects; prosecution outcome not favorable	Court: Malicious prosecution fails because prosecution did not terminate in plaintiff's favor (probation before judgment)
Whether claims against Maryland (false arrest, battery, negligence, §1983) may proceed	Daulatzai asserts state torts and constitutional deprivation from arrest and detention	Maryland invokes MTCA administrative-exhaustion requirement and Heck doctrine due to conviction/probation before judgment	Court: State tort claims dismissed for failure to comply with MTCA; federal §1983 claim barred by Heck as it would imply invalidity of conviction

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
Cerqueiro v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 520 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (airline/pilot discretion under §44902(b))
Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 1998) (ADA preemption of state regulation of boarding practices)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claims barred if success would imply invalidity of conviction)
Candelero v. Cole, 831 A.2d 495 (Md. 2003) (favorable termination requirement for malicious prosecution)
Heron v. Strader, 761 A.2d 56 (Md. 2000) (elements of malicious prosecution)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (probable cause supports arrest even for minor offenses)