United States District Court, D. Columbia.
Decided Date: June 6, 2014.
For ROGER RUDDER, D.G., (MINOR CHILD), by and through her Next Friend and Mother, NOVERLENE GISELLE GOSS, NOVERLENE GISELLE GOSS, E.R., (MINOR CHILD), by and through her Next Friend and Father, ROGER RUDDER, ROSENA RUDDER, Plaintiffs: Anitha W. Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEY, ODELUGO & JOHNSON, LLC, Lanham, MD; Gregory L. Lattimer, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY L. LATTIMER, PLLC, Washington, DC.
For SHANNON WILLIAMS, Officer, WILLIAM CHATMAN, Officer, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A Municipal Corporation, Defendants: Alicia Marie Cullen, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, DC.
RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs Roger Rudder, Rosena Rudder, Noverlene Goss, E.R. (a minor), and D.G. (a minor at the time the initial Complaint was filed) bring this action against, Master Patrol Officer Shannon Williams (" MPO Williams" ), Officer William Chatman, and the District of Columbia, alleging claims of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unreasonable seizure. Corrected Am. Compl. [Dkt. # 36]. Defendant MPO Williams moves for partial dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mot. for Partial Dismissal of Master Patrol Officer Shannon Williams 1 [Dkt. #41]. Specifically, MPO Williams moves to dismiss D.G.'s intentional tort claims (Counts I and II) and the adult plaintiffs' Section 1983 unreasonable seizure claims (Count III) against her as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Id. at 2. For the reasons described herein, MPO Williams's motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED.
This case arises out of an alleged incident at Washington, D.C.'s Annual Caribbean Carnival Parade in June 2008. Corrected Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs allege that Master Patrol Officer Shannon Williams and Officer W. Chatman used unnecessary force, including baton strikes, while they were returning to the sidewalk after greeting relatives participating in the parade. Id. ¶ ¶ 7-12.
The initial Complaint in this matter was filed on November 16, 2009. Compl. [Dkt. #1]. It named MPO Williams, Officer Chatman, and the District of Columbia as defendants and alleged multiple claims arising under the United States Constitution and District of Columbia laws. Id. MPO Williams filed a partial motion to dismiss on January 11, 2010. Def. Shannon Williams' Mot. for Partial Dismissal [Dkt. #3]. Officer Chapman and the District of Columbia also filed a motion to dismiss on January 11, 2010, but did so in a separate document because they had to request an extension of time. Consent Mot. for Extension of Time [Dkt. #4]; Defs.' Mot. for Partial Dismissal [Dkt. #4-1]. On March 16, 2010, attorneys for defendants filed a praecipe indicating that MPO Williams had not been served with the Complaint, so the partial motion to dismiss filed on January 11, 2010 was filed on behalf of Officer Chatman and the District of Columbia only, not on behalf of MPO Williams. Praecipe [Dkt. #8]. This court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and did not address the issue of Williams's lack of service, which had not been raised in a separate motion to dismiss. Mem. Order [Dkt. #10]. Plaintiffs appealed.
On January 17, 2012, our Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded with respect to all plaintiffs' claims against the officers under the Fourth Amendment, as well as the minors' common law claims, the latter of which it held should have been dismissed without prejudice. Rudder v. Williams, 666 F.3d 790, 796, 399 U.S. App.D.C. 45 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Circuit Court did not address MPO Williams's argument, however, that she had not been served, because she had not filed a motion to dismiss on those grounds in this court. Id. at 793.
On August 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Complaint against Officers Williams and Chatman and the District of Columbia which is now before this court. Corrected Am. Compl. Three counts remain: (I) D.G. and E.R.'s claims of assault and battery, id. ¶ ¶ 13-16; (II) D.G. and E.R.'s claims intentional infliction of emotional distress, id. ¶ ¶ 17-19; and (III) violation of all plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ...