White v. United States
791 F. Supp. 2d 156
D.D.C.2011Background
- Kellen Anthony White was shot and killed by USCP officers Greenwell and Shelfo during a vehicle stop in DC on July 15, 2009.
- White's parents, as personal representatives of the estate, seek leave to file a second amended complaint against federal and local defendants seeking damages under Bivens, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and the FTCA.
- Plaintiffs propose counts I–VIII, including Bivens claims against USCP officers, conspiracy claims under § 1985(3), defamation claims, and FTCA claims against the United States and MPD entities.
- Defendants largely object to Counts II–V (claims against USCP and Morse and others) as barred by sovereign immunity and as futile for lack of pleading of conspiracy.
- The court grants leave to amend in part, denying leave to amend as to Counts III–V and the portion of Count II naming USCP and Morse, but allowing other specified amendments.
- The court proceeds under Rule 15 and screens the proposed second amended complaint for subject-matter jurisdiction and plausibility under Bell Atlantic/Twombly-Iqbal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does sovereign immunity bar Bivens/§1985(3) claims against USCP and Morse? | White argues the claims are valid against the named federal defendants. | USCP and Morse contend sovereign immunity prevents monetary relief against federal agencies and officials in official capacity. | Sovereign immunity bars the Bivens and §1985(3) claims against USCP and Morse. |
| Are Counts III and IV (conspiracy under §1985(3) and Bivens) adequately pleaded? | Plaintiffs assert a conspiracy to deprive rights and pattern of discrimination as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. | Defendants argue there are no facts showing an agreement to violate rights, only conclusory allegations. | Counts III and IV are inadequately pleaded for lack of any concrete agreement; dismissed. |
| Is Count V (conspiracy to defame under §1985(3)) adequately pleaded? | Plaintiffs contend defendants conspired to defame by falsely claiming a gun was present. | Defendants argue there is no facts showing agreement or that defamation falls within §1985(3) purposes. | Count V is inadequately pleaded; defamation not actionable under §1985(3); dismissed. |
| Should the court grant leave to amend given futility on Counts III–V and related sections? | Plaintiffs seek broad amendments to assert their theories against additional defendants. | Defendants urge denial of amendment for futility on conspiracy and immunity grounds. | Leave granted in part; permitted amendments except for Counts III–V and the portion of Count II naming USCP and Morse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to plausibly state a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009) (two-pronged plausibility standard; factual content must support a plausible claim)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court, 1993) (notice pleading standards and liberality in plaintiffs' favor)
- Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C., 2007) (conspiracy claims require more than conclusory allegations of agreement)
- Brady v. Livingood, 360 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C., 2004) (dismissing conspiracy claim lacking showing of agreement)
- Estate of Phillips v. Dist. of Columbia, 257 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C., 2003) (conspiracy claims require specific acts showing concerted action)
- Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir., 2009) (elements of §1985(3) conspiracy; need identifiable agreement)
- Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir., 1994) (rejects conclusory conspiracies lacking factual detail)