Harvey v. District of Columbia, 109 F. Supp. 3d 173

On Sept. 18, 2013, Gene Harvey went to a traffic-stop scene to retrieve three children after his sister and cousin were detained by MPD officers.
Harvey alleges Officer Michael Kasco threw him onto a police car, slammed him to the ground, pulled his hair, pressed a knee into his back, cursed and taunted him, while other officers watched and did not intervene.
Harvey claims other officers later helped effect a false arrest and booking; no charges were ultimately filed and he was released. He filed an administrative complaint and the U.S. Attorney declined prosecution.
Harvey sued Kasco and unnamed officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First, Fourth, Fifth Amendments) and brought common-law claims (assault, battery, conspiracy, negligence, false arrest/imprisonment, IIED). He sued the District under Monell, for respondeat superior, and for negligent training/supervision.
Defendants moved to dismiss: the District sought dismissal of the Monell and negligent supervision claims; Kasco sought dismissal of the Fifth Amendment, conspiracy, and negligence claims against him.
The court dismissed the Monell claim (Count II), the conspiracy claim (Count V), the negligent training/supervision claim (Count IX), and the Fifth Amendment portion of Count I; it denied dismissal of Harvey’s negligence claim against Kasco and left other claims intact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Municipal liability under Monell	District maintained a custom/practice of using excessive force despite formal MPD policy	Allegation is conclusory; no factual link showing a municipal policy or custom caused the violation	Dismissed — complaint fails to plead facts showing a municipal policy or practice was the moving force
Fifth Amendment substantive due process vs. Fourth Amendment	Harvey contends Kasco’s conduct (and others’ failure to intervene) violated substantive due process	Police-misconduct claims arising from arrests are governed by the Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process	Dismissed — Fifth Amendment claim merges with Fourth Amendment claim
Conspiracy to falsely arrest	Officers conspired to cover up Kasco’s excessive force by falsely arresting Harvey	Allegations are conclusory; prosecutor’s declination of charges insufficient to infer a conspiracy	Dismissed — complaint lacks specific factual allegations of an agreement or overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy
Negligence (against Kasco)	Harvey alleges negligence as an alternative theory distinct from assault/battery for excessive-force injuries	District argues negligence cannot coexist with intentional-tort claims	Not dismissed — plaintiff may plead negligence in the alternative; may not recover on inconsistent theories simultaneously

Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or practice)
Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (two-step Monell inquiry: predicate constitutional violation and link to municipal policy)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (municipal liability principles)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force claims analyzed under the Fourth Amendment)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires factual content to state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (municipal liability requires specific factual connection)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal failure to train theory)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process limited where specific constitutional provisions apply)
Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (elements of civil conspiracy)