188 F. Supp. 3d 535
D. Maryland2016Background
- In early Jan 2014 officers responded to two noise/disturbance calls involving Demetrious Queen; initially they handcuffed him briefly, released him after he calmed, then later returned to his apartment and arrested him.
- Queen alleges officers (including Christopher May) struck him multiple times, dragged him, and used batons; he sued for assault, battery, false arrest, and §1983 claims (false arrest/probable cause and excessive force).
- May moved for summary judgment (unopposed); the court nonetheless reviewed the record (depositions, affidavit, medical records) and found genuine disputes of material fact.
- Key factual disputes: whether Queen was loudly yelling in the apartment/hallway at the time officers re-engaged (supporting disorderly conduct) vs. testimony that conversation was not loud; whether Queen physically resisted when handcuffed.
- Medical records show facial contusion and dried blood on lips after the incident; charges against Queen arising from conduct in custody were later dropped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / false arrest (state & §1983) | Queen contends arrest lacked legal justification because he was not committing disorderly conduct when arrested | May asserts he had probable cause/legal justification based on repeated noise complaints and Queen’s belligerence | Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute exists whether Queen was disturbing the peace; legal justification for misdemeanor arrest disputed |
| Qualified immunity (for arrest) | Queen argues rights were violated and immunity not available if no probable cause/justification | May argues objectively reasonable reliance on law and facts (qualified immunity) | Denied on summary judgment because disputed facts could show no probable cause and thus immunity not established |
| Excessive force (§1983) | Queen alleges excessive force (multiple strikes, dragging) causing facial injury | May contends force was reasonable to effectuate arrest and to control resistance (used palm-heel strike/armbar) | Denied — disputed facts and evidence (handcuffed/verbally resisting, struck twice, taken to ground) allow reasonable jury to find force excessive; qualified immunity not resolved on summary judgment |
| Common-law assault & battery | Queen seeks recovery for assault/battery based on use of force | May moves to dismiss these claims but provided no developed legal argument or supporting authority | Denied without prejudice as May failed to carry his summary judgment burden on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (recognizes probable cause standard for warrantless arrests)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (officer may arrest for minor offense observed in presence)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force judged by objective reasonableness / Graham factors)
- Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520 (Fourth Circuit found force unreasonable where handcuffed intoxicated plaintiff was knocked down and injured)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Wilson v. Kittoe, 337 F.3d 392 (probable cause inquiry discussed)
- Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828 (summary judgment standards in Fourth Circuit)
- Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (Maryland: elements for false arrest/false imprisonment and legal justification for warrantless arrest)