Ronald Smith v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21877
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Ronald M. Smith, a federal agency employee, drove officials to the Capitol on Nov. 5, 2009; after a disputed interaction at an attended barricade, he made a hasty U‑turn and left.
- Capitol Police Officer Corey Rogers radioed that Smith had “intentionally almost struck” him; Officer Lawrence Anyaso shortly thereafter arrested Smith for assault with a deadly weapon and assault on a police officer.
- The government charged Smith in Superior Court; Smith declined a plea offer and the charges were dismissed with prejudice months later.
- Smith sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (against the United States) and Bivens (against the officers) alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a Fourth Amendment violation; he sought $5,000,000.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment supported by a video (no audio) and an audio radio recording; the recordings contradicted Smith’s complaint and showed Smith accelerating and passing very close to Officer Rogers.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the officers had probable cause to arrest; Smith appealed and also challenged the denial of discovery under Rule 56(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment on false arrest/malicious prosecution/Bivens claims | Smith said video/audio did not conclusively show he intentionally drove toward or struck Rogers; factual disputes existed about speed, proximity, and intent | Recordings objectively show Smith accelerated and passed very close to an in‑uniform officer; objective probable cause standard met | Court: No material dispute; video/audio establish probable cause as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether probable cause existed for arrest for assault (including assault on an officer) | Smith argued absence of physical contact and disputed intent/speed/proximity meant no probable cause | Defendants: assault need not involve contact; apparent present ability to injure and officer’s perception suffice; uniformed status satisfies officer element | Court: Probable cause existed because conduct and circumstances reasonably suggested an ability to injure and officer was identifiable; assault elements met objectively |
| Whether refusal to allow additional discovery under Rule 56(d) was error | Smith sought depositions of the officers and witnesses to create factual disputes | Defendants: Smith already had police reports, photos, audio/video; Smith’s 56(d) affidavit was vague and failed to specify what facts he hoped to discover or why they were necessary | Court: Denial proper — Smith did not show with particularity the facts to be discovered or why they would preclude summary judgment |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress claim survives despite probable cause | Smith argued officers’ alleged fabrications and resulting prolonged prosecution caused severe distress and job/security clearance loss | Defendants: Probable cause defeats IIED based on arrest/prosecution; alleged conduct not sufficiently outrageous under D.C. law | Court: IIED dismissed — probable cause bars claim based on arrest/prosecution; alleged conduct not monstrously outrageous; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing implied damages action for constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can resolve disputed facts for summary judgment when it shows events objectively)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (objective probable cause standard for arrests)
- Amobi v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 755 F.3d 980 (probable cause defeats false arrest/malicious prosecution claims and related remedies)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (Rule 56(d) affidavit must specify facts to be discovered and why they are necessary)
- Ruffin v. United States, 642 A.2d 1288 (D.C. law defining elements of simple assault)
- Sousa v. United States, 400 A.2d 1036 (focus on how conduct and circumstances affect the assaulted party in assessing intent and apparent ability)