Roger Rudder v. Shannon Williams
399 U.S. App. D.C. 45
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Five plaintiffs (two adults with last name Rudder and Goss, and two juveniles E.R. and D.G.) sued the District of Columbia and two MPD officers for excessive force under § 1983 and for common law torts.
- The 2008 Caribbean Carnival Parade in Washington, D.C. allegedly involved officers shoving, baton strikes, ground beating, and subsequent arrests of the adults.
- The district court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice, and did not separately address the Fourth Amendment claims against the officers.
- Plaintiffs conceded their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims were waived and that their common law claims were time-barred; they sought to preserve Fourth Amendment claims against the officers.
- The district court dismissed the Monell claim against the District for lack of policy or custom allegations, and sua sponte dismissed Fourth Amendment claims by implication.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed in part: juvenile common law claims should be dismissed without prejudice, and Fourth Amendment claims against the officers were plausibly stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile common law claims should be dismissed without prejudice | Rudder contends juveniles’ claims were not time-barred | Williams/Chatman argue concessions barred all common law claims | Juvenile claims must be dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether Fourth Amendment excessive force claims against Officers Chatman and Williams are plausibly stated | Rudder asserts excessive force against both officers | Williams and Chatman contend claims fail under pleading standards | Plaintiffs state facially plausible Fourth Amendment claims |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice of the common law juvenile claims was proper | Rudder argues dismissal should be without prejudice due to tolling and concession scope | Defendants contend dismissal with prejudice was proper due to concession | Dismissal with prejudice reversed; should be without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive force standard: reasonableness in context)
- Oberwetter v. Hilliard, 639 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (force during arrest exceeding what is expected)
- Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (dismissal with prejudice requires cure by additional facts)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (2010) (proper standard for amendment and relation back; tolling concerns)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (preference for merits-based resolution; standard for dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: facts showing plausible claim required)
- Razzoli v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 230 F.3d 371 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (sua sponte dismissal without leave to amend reversible error)