Fenwick v. United States of America
926 F. Supp. 2d 201
D.D.C.2013Background
- Fenwick, a sixteen-year-old, was shot and seriously injured by Deputy Marshals while leaving a parking lot after being suspected of theft.
- A juvenile delinquency proceeding in Superior Court of the DC on related charges resulted in a felony assault on a police officer verdict and other adjudications.
- The instant FTCA/Bivens action alleges Fourth Amendment excessive force and related claims against the United States and three deputies.
- Video footage from nearby surveillance captured much of the encounter and was used in the juvenile proceedings as well as this case.
- The Court previously dismissed some common law claims; this opinion addresses preclusion, Heck v. Humphrey, and remaining FTCA/constitutional claims.
- Key issues include collateral estoppel/issue preclusion, Heck limitations, and whether genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on excessive force and FTCA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Fenwick's claims | Fenwick asserts preclusion of issues resolved against him in juvenile court | Collateral estoppel precludes related issues actually litigated and essential to the prior judgment | Collateral estoppel does not bar all claims; some issues are precluded, others remain viable |
| Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars excessive force claims | Excessive force theory does not attack conviction, so Heck does not bar it | Some theories would imply invalidity of the juvenile assault conviction | Heck does not completely bar the excessive force claims; some theories survive |
| Whether FTCA false imprisonment claim is viable | Alleges false imprisonment during hospital detention following shooting | FTCA false imprisonment not adequately developed against defendants | FTCA false imprisonment claim dismissed |
| Whether Deputy Mickle may be held liable | Mickle encouraged or conspired with others to commit rights violations | Mickle did not fire or provide evidence of conspiracy; no liability | Summary judgment granted for Mickle on Bivens and FTCA grounds |
| Whether there are genuine facts disputing qualified immunity | Video and testimony support excessive force; immunity should not apply without fact resolution | Defendants acted quickly in a dangerous situation; qualified immunity applies if reasonable | Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on qualified immunity; jury must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1981) (full and fair opportunity required for collateral estoppel as to preclusion)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (state-law preclusion rules apply in federal cases)
- Lassiter v. Dist. of Columbia, 447 A.2d 456 (D.C. 1982) (collateral estoppel not applicable when issues not actually litigated or decided)
- Carr v. Rose, 701 A.2d 1065 (D.C. 1997) (collateral estoppel applies to matters actually adjudicated and essential to prior judgment)
- Modiri v. 1342 Rest. Group, Inc., 904 A.2d 391 (D.C. 2006) (collateral estoppel requires determination essential to judgment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive force claims)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force allowed when suspect poses immediate threat; not when fleeing unthreatened)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (Damages actions avoid defeating criminal judgments unless the claim would invalidate them)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity; right clearly established in light of precedent)