Bell, Jr. v. Baltimore City Police Department et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 5/23/13. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RUDOLPH L. BELL, JR.

v.
BALTIMORE CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
******

Civil No. – JFM-13-982

MEMORANDUM

This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. Named
as defendants are the Baltimore City Police Department and several unidentified officers of the
Department. The Department removed the action to this court, and it has filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
Count V of the amended complaint is entitled “Violation of U.S. Constitution, Fifth
Amendment, Defendant Police Department’s Failure to Properly Train.” The Department
reasonably construed this count as alleging a Monell claim in violation of federal law, and it was
on this basis that the removal petition was filed. It his opposition memoranda, plaintiff avers that
he was not intending to assert a federal claim but rather was stating only a state claim for failure
to properly train and that the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution merely establishes the
standard of care to a failure to train claim. It may very well be that plaintiff has no cognizable
claim under state law. This court, however, will take plaintiff at his word that he is not stating a
federal claim. Of course, plaintiff’s representation to this court that he is not asserting any
Monell claim judicially estops him from asserting a Monell claim at a later stage of this
litigation.

1

Under these circumstances plaintiff’s motion to remand will be granted. Given the fact,
however, that it was plaintiff’s own inartful pleading that caused the removal, no costs or fees
will be awarded against defendant for having filed the petition for removal.
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, to which this case is remanded, should decide the
non-federal issues raised by defendant’s motion to dismiss because only questions of state law
are presented. To reiterate, however, plaintiff is estopped from asserting a Monell claim later in
this litigation.

Date: May 23, 2013

___/s/___________________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

2