United States District Court, District of Columbia
G. Sullivan United States District Judge.
before the Court is defendant Paragon Systems, Inc.'s
("Paragon") motion for summary judgment. For the
reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS
October 24, 2012, plaintiff Dennis Johnson arrived at an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
facility and entered the building with a loaded handgun in
his briefcase. Am. Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 12. As a retired
federal law enforcement officer, Mr. Johnson asserts that he
is entitled to carry a firearm on federal property at any
time. Id. ¶ 10.
- perhaps because Mr. Johnson inadvertently entered the ICE
facility through the visitors' entrance and not the
employees' entrance - Mr. Johnson was immediately
detained by security guards allegedly employed by Paragon.
Id. ¶¶ 10-13. According to Mr. Johnson,
even though he promptly displayed his law-enforcement badge
to the security guards, and even though the security guards
were allegedly notified that Mr. Johnson was entitled to
bring his weapon into the building, the security guards
"handcuffed Plaintiff for over two hours."
Id. ¶¶ 13-15.
Johnson further alleges that Christopher Adams - a Federal
Protective Service employee who supposedly supervised
"either a Paragon Systems employee or MVM employee"
- threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr.
Johnson "for entering the ICE facility with a loaded
handgun." Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Mr. Adams
purportedly continued to threaten Mr. Johnson with legal
action for a period of over two months. Id.
on these allegations, Mr. Johnson filed suit on October 31,
2015 against Paragon. See Compl., ECF No. 1. In that
complaint, Mr. Johnson asserted four causes of action: (1) a
"civil rights violation"; (2) assault and battery;
(3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4)
common-law negligence. Id. ¶¶ 18-35. On
July 1, 2016, the Court granted Paragon's partial motion
to dismiss, dismissing Mr. Johnson's claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress after concluding
that Mr. Johnson had failed to sufficiently allege that his
injury resulted from "extreme and outrageous
conduct." See Johnson v. Paragon Sys., Inc.,
195 F.Supp.3d 96 (D.D.C. 2016).
the dismissal, Mr. Johnson filed an amended complaint adding
MVM Inc., Federal Protective Services, and Christopher Adams
as co-defendants. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 12 (filed
October 21, 2016). Paragon timely answered the complaint and,
on January 13, 2017, filed this motion for summary judgment.
See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s
Mot."), ECF No. 18.
support of its motion, Paragon states that, at the time of
Mr. Johnson's encounter with the security guards at the
ICE facility, it "did not have a contract to provide
security services" at the site. See Def.'s
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("SUMF")
¶¶ 2-3, ECF No. 18-1. To that end, Paragon
maintains that none of its employees, agents, or
representatives were "involved, in any way, with the
alleged occurrence" described in Mr. Johnson's
amended complaint. Id. ¶¶
deposition, Mr. Johnson essentially conceded as much,
testifying that he had no knowledge with respect to
Paragon's involvement in the incident at the ICE
Q: Do you have any understanding of what
role Paragon Systems, Inc. played in regard to the incident?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you have an understanding [as to] why
they were named as a Defendant in ...