Brunio-Whalen v. The State of Maryland et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/28/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 3/28/16)
FILED
h~lf1~~~~RT,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUKrJ/~'1SRI~/f
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOllthem Dil'isioll
AND
lOlb MAR 28 P 2: I W
*
ALEXIA BURNO-WHALEN,
*
*
Plaintiff,
Case No.: G.IH-15-564
v.
*
STATE OF MARYLAND, et aI.,
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PlaintifTAlexia Burno- Whalen brought this action against Trooper First Class Oliver
Okafor. Trooper First Class Robcrt Hobbs. and the State of Maryland. alleging common la\\"tort
claims ofbatlery and false arrest and constitutional claims of excessive force. pursuant to 42
U.S.c.
S
1983 and the FOUl1eenthAmendment. and arrest \\"ithout probablc cause. pursuant to 42
U.S.c.
S
1983 and the Fourth Amendment. See ECF No. 16. No\\" pending' be/()re the Court is
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. Motion lor Summary Judgment of
Plaintifrs Amended Complaint and Burno- Whalen's Motion fiJI" Leavc to File a Surreply. ECF
Nos. 17, 25. A hearing is not neccssary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 20 \4). For the rcasons
stated below. the Court grants Burno-Whalen's Motion\()r Leave to File a Surreply and denies
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. Motion lor Summary Judgmcnt.
I.
BACKGROUNI)'
On February 26. 2012. Burna-Whalen left work and began driving on Route 5 headed
toward her sister's house. ECF No. 16 ~ 8. As she drove onto the exit ramp toward Route 495.
another vehicle drove up next to her on the right shoulder and struck the front passenger's side of
her vehicle. Id. Both drivers pulled over to the side of the road. and the other driver called the
police. Id. Burna-Whalen remained in her car to wait for the pol icc to arrive. Jd. Ollicer Okafi.)r
arrived on the scene and spoke to the other driver lirst. JtI. ~ 9. Okafor then asked Burno- Whalen
to step out of her vehicle to do a breathalyzer test. Id. After Burno- Wlmlen attempted the test
several times, Okalor became angry and yelled at her to blow harder. JtI. Following additional
attempts. Okator arrested Burna-Whalen and put her in handcull's without pertorming any licld
sobriety tests or asking tor her version of how the accident occurred. Jd. Okalor then placed
Burna-Whalen in the passenger side of his patrol car and began driving toward the College Park
Police Barracks. Jd.
Once in the patrol car. Burna-Whalen began screaming. rocking back and lorth. and
kicking her feet because "she did not know why Ollicer Oka!{}rwas taking her to College Park:'
Id. She spat on the floor "because her nose and mouth were lilIed with mucus:' Id. Okafor then
began grabbing at her. Id. Once at the police barracks. Okal{}r grabbed Burno- Whalen. pulled her
out of the patrol car. and then struck her in the mouth with a metal baton while her hands were
still handcutTed behind her back. Il!. Blood began "gushing"
1;'0111
her nose and mouth and she
could feci that her upper and lower front teeth were broken. Jd. She repeatedly screamed. "You
knocked all my teeth out of my mouth:' and spat out blood and broken teeth. Jd. Okalor drove
her to the hospital emergency room. and. after she was treated. drove her back to the police
1 The parties in this case allege vastly dine-rent versions
of the facts. but lor the purposes of this motion. the facts
must be viewed in the light 1110st favorable to Burna-Whalen. the non-moving party. Sc!c!Ce/olc!x Corp. \: Catn:l1.
477 U.S. 317. 322-24 (1986).
2
barracks. lei.
'1 10.
Upon returning to College Park. Burno- Whalcn and Okafor were met by Ollicer Hobbs
and another otlieer. Jd. Hobbs placed Burno- Whalen in the back seat of his patrol car. lying faceup, and "'hogtied' [her] by tying a rope around her legs and pulling and wedging the rope
between the door of the patrol car and the doorjamb of the patrol car'" Jd. Despite the I"actthat
she was not resisting arrest or trying to escape. she was kept "hogtied" in the same position I()r
forty minutes while Hobbs drove her to the jail in Upper Marlboro. lei.
[n
addition to submitting declarations suggesting a very dilferent version of the facts.
2
the Defendants submitted video footage from a dashboard camera inside of Okalor's patrol car.
See ECF No. 17, Ex. C. The video includes footage from the timc when Okalor was directed. via
radio, to report to the scene 01" Burno- Whalen's automobile accident. to when Okal"or and BurnoWhalen arrived at the College Park Police BaiTacks. [n addition. there are several additional
minutes of footage when Burno-Whalen. Okalor. and other ollicers can be heard speaking just
outside of Okalor's patrol car.
The video conlinns certain allcgations made by each party. but is of limited value
because Bumo- Whalen is not visible at the moment she sulfered her alleged injury. The video
clearly shows Burno- Whalen kicking, screaming. rocking back and lorth. and becoming free of
her seatbelt in the patrol car. allowing her to move around. ECF No. 17. Ex. C. The video also
shows Burno- Whalen spitting. though her spitting appears to bc directed at the !loor. and at one
point Okafor oilers her a cup in which to spit. Jd. When they arrive at the barracks. Okaf()r can
2 For instance, in his Declaration,
Okafor slates. ill relevant part. that Burno-Whalen performed field sobriety tests.
\\'hich demonstrated psycho-physical impairment. and her Preliminary Breath test resulted in a ".16 SAC:' ECF No.
17-2 ~ 8. In addition. he alleges that he did not hit Burno-Whalen in the 1110uth \vith a baton. but that she was injured
while acting erratically and trying to free herself ofOkafor's grip as he helped her out or the patrol car. causing.her
to fall and hit her mouth on the ground. 1"- ~ 11. Okafor also slates that he did not accompany Burno-Whal~nto th~
hospital, but rather len her in the custody of other troopers and went to the hospital separately to be checked for
contamination alier Burno-\Vhalen allegedly spit blood 011 his nice and in his mouth.ltI. ';flI2-13.
3
be seen pulling BUll1o-Whalen from the vehicle with both hands. Id No baton is visible at that
time. Id. at 09: 17:53.3 Seconds later. BUll1o-Whalen can be heard repeatedly screaming. "You
knocked my teeth out:' Id at 09: 18:0 I. Burna-Whalen is not visible at this point and. as a result.
the video does not show how she sustained her injury. A little over three minutes later. OkafoI'
can be heard saying. "she just spat her blood in my face:' I". at 09:21 :02. At that time another
officer asks OkafoI' whether he got blood in his mouth. and he says. "1 think so:' It!. at 09:21 :24.
After a couple of minutes. an ol1icer asks OkafoI' tor his account of events. It!. at 09:23 :31. The
officer asks Okalor how Burno- Whalen's hair came out and whether her teeth were actually
busted out. Id. at 09:25: II. As the video progresses. Burno- Whalen can be heard cursing and
insulting the ot1icers. Id. at 09:26:44. In addition. oflicers can be heard telling Burno- Whalen to
stop moving her head and neck. Id at 09:27:25. Burna-Whalen also repeatedly says ... they'rc
pushing me on the ground:' and "get otT my ncck:' Id. at 09:28:21.
Burna-Whalen tiled her Amendcd Complaint on June 4. 2015.~ Defendants have tiled a
Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternativc. Motion tor Summary Judgment.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Leave to File Surrerly
Pursuant to Local Rule 105.2.a. surreply memoranda are not permitted to be tiled unless
otherwise ordered by the Court. "Surreplies may be permitted when the moving party would be
unable to contest matters prescntcd to the court for the lirst time in the opposing party's reply:'
3
The pin cites for the video refer to time stamps embedded on the top-right comer orthe video.
~ Bumo-Whalen properly provided notice to the State of her claim under the Maryland Tort Claims Act by delivering
a claim letter in accordance with Maryland Code Ann .. Cts. & Jud. I'roc. ~~ 12- I06. 12-107. to Nancy K. Kopp.
Treasurer for the State of Maryland, on February 13.2013. ECF No. 16 ~ 20. Likewise. Burna-Whalen properly
filed her action \••..
ithin three years of the alleged tortious acts on February 2. 2015. in the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County. ECF No. I at I: see Md. Code Ann .. State Gov't ~ 12-106(b): II"I/ace I: Kalo. 549 U.S. 384. 387.
127 S. Ct. 109 I (2007) (finding that the relevant statute of limitations for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 "is
that which the State provides for personal-injury torts"). The action was removed to this Court on February 27.
2015./d.
4
Khoury
1'.
,'v!eserve, 268 F. Supp. 2d 600. 605 (D. Md. 2003) (citing LeH"is
1'.
R/I/I/.~/e/d. 154 F.
Supp. 2d 56, 62 (D.D.C. 200 I)).
Burno- Whalen argues that she should be grantcd leave to tile a surrcply because
Defendants raised certain arguments for the first time in their Reply. The Court agrees that some
new arguments were raised in Defendants' Reply. Additionally. Burno-Whalen's Motion for
Leave to File a Surreply is unopposed. Accordingly. the Court grants Burno- Whalen leave to Iile
her Surrep!y, and will consider the arguments made therein.
B. Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternativc,
I.
Standard
Motion for Summary
.Judgmcnt
of Rcview
Defendants have styled their motion as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)( 6). or in the alternative. a motion lor summary judgment under Rule
56. '"A motion styled in this manner implicates the court's discretion under Rule 12(d) of the
Federal Rules ofCivill'roeedure"
LEXIS 8513, at
* 15 (D.
McCray \: Md. DOT.. No. ELlI-II-3732.
2013 U.S. Dis!.
Md. Jan. 16. 2013): see also Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 12(d) ("I L on a motion
under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by
the court, the motion must be treated as a one tor summary judgment under Rule 56."'). Pursuant
to Rule 12(d). the Court has discretion to determine whether to aecept evidence outside the
pleadings, and thus convel1 a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a Rule 56 motion. Id. at
* 16. Typically.
all
parties must then be given the opportunity to present all material pertinent to the motion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(d), but when the moving party captions its motion "in thc alternativc" and presents
evidence outside the pleadings lor the court's consideration. the parties are deemed to have
notice that the court may treat the motion as one lor summary judgment under the parameters of
Rule 12(d). McCray. 2013 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 8513. at
5
* 17.
In the instant case, Defendants' motion relies heavily on video footage from a dashboard
camera in Okafor's car. Bumo- Whalen likewise references the video in her responsive motions,
and had full opportunity to respond to this evidence. Thus. it appears that both parties agree the
video is helpful to the Court's resolution of this motion and neither side has requested additional
discovery in this regard. See McCray, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEX[S 8513, at
* 16 ("[n
general. courts
are guided by whether consideration of extraneous material 'is likely to lacilitate the disposition
of the action,' and •whether discovery prior to the utilization of the summary judgment
procedure' is necessary.") (citation omitted). Accordingly, conversion of the motion to a motion
for summary judgment under Rule 56 is appropriate.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the Court. viewing the record as a whole
and in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determines that there exists no genuine
issue of material lact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
CelOlex Corp. \~ Call'ell, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986): AlI
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?