Moore v. District of Columbia
79 F. Supp. 3d 121
D.D.C.2015Background
- Dispute arises from April 1, 2011 incident involving five MPD officers and two plaintiffs (Angelique and Eric Moore).
- Plaintiff Eric Moore allegedly rode a bike sidewalk when Lt. Alter blocked him, prompting exchanges over conduct and proximity.
- Allegations include Lt. Alter bumping Moore, Callahan allegedly grabbing and tackling both plaintiffs, and a related arrest of Moore.
- Ms. Moore claims Callahan tackled her from behind, causing injury; Callahan denies tackling and comments alleged by plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims; District and MPD officers seek partial summary judgment on eight claims.
- Court denied in part and granted in part the motion, with trial set on remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bystander liability for constitutional violations | Coles, Sharpton, Dossen, Alter liable as bystanders | No bystander liability; no participation or advance notice | Genuine issues of material fact on bystander liability; not grantable on summary judgment |
| District liability under §1983 for Fourth/Fifth Amendment claims | District's deliberate indifference shown via prior patterns | No established pattern; no deliberate indifference | District not liable under Counts 2 and 4 on summary judgment |
| Negligence claims against District and Alter (Counts 12,16) | Negligent supervision; training; retention; and possible negligent hiring | No proof of negligent training; limited evidence on supervision | Negligence claims: negligent supervision partly; negligent training dismissed; Counts 12/16 partially denied/granted accordingly |
| Negligence claim by Ms. Moore against District and Callahan (Count 14) | Tackle was negligent and outside appropriate force | No exclusive claim; conflict with intentional conduct | Count 14 denied in part as to some theories; allowed as to alternative negligent theory |
| Count 1 Fourth Amendment and Count 3 Fifth Amendment claims against MPD officers | Unprovoked tackle violated Fourth/Fifth rights; bystander liability possible | Disposition of bystander liability and need for disproved motive | Count 3 survives against some officers; Count 1 unresolved pending triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall v. Prince George's Cnty., 302 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2002) (officer intervention duties for constitutional rights)
- Wesby v. District of Columbia, 765 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (hub of investigation can sustain §1983 liability for participation)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force analyzed under Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Norris v. District of Columbia, 737 F.2d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (guidelines for conscience-shocking use of force)
- Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (conscience-shocking standard for substantive due process)
- Huthnance v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2011) (evidence of pattern of disorderly arrests to show notice)
- Chinn v. District of Columbia, 839 A.2d 701 (D.C. Ct. App. 2003) (separate, distinct negligence and assault claims)