Dawson v. Pisarek et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 08/21/2017. (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

Jaki Monta Dawson,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

V.
Daniel Pisarek,
Defendant.

l:15cv993(AJT/JFA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jaki Monta Dawson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his rights under the Fourth Amendment were

violated by an unlawful traffic stop and a subsequent use of excessive force. Plaintiff also asserts

two tort claims arising under Virginia law. On January 6,2017, defendant Officer Daniel Pisarek
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with a supporting brief and exhibits [Dkt. No. 19-20], and
supplied plaintiff with the notice required by Local Rule 7(K) and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528
F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). [Dkt. No. 19] In response, plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law with a supporting brief [Dkt. No. 24-25], and defendant submitted a Response in
Opposition. [Dkt. No. 26] Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons
that follow, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, and plaintiffs Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law will be denied.
L Background

The following material facts are uncontested. On November 22,2013, Officer Pisarek of
the City of Hopewell Police Department was travel;ng~eastbound on Oaklawn Boulevard in

Hopewell, Virginia whenhe observed another eastbound vehicle ridingon the yellow line.
Pisarek DecL, Dkt. No. 20, Ex. 1 at 14. Officer Pisarek radioed headquarters that he intended to
stop the vehicle, which then failed to yield to his warning lights and continued for two blocks
before pulling into the parking lot of a convenience store. The vehicle came to a stop leaving
some distance between its front wheels and the curb, and because Officer Pisarek found that

suspicious he pulled his patrol car very close to the vehicle's rear bumper. Id., 15. When Officer
Pisarek exited his vehicle the driver, who was later identified as Dawson, quickly opened his
door and attempted to get out of the car, but Officer Pisarek ordered him to remain inside the
vehicle and to put on his seat belt as a safety precaution. Id., ^ 6. It took Dawson five to ten
seconds to comply with those instructions. Id.

After Dawson had the seat belt on Officer Pisarek approached the vehicle. Dawson

immediately began to curse, to question the officer and to argue that he had done nothing wrong.
Id., H7. Officer Dawson found these actions to be overly aggressive and they aroused his
suspicions further. Id Officer Pisarek instructed Dawson to open the window and Dawson said

it was broken, at which point Officer Pisarek pushed it down. Id. When he did so he could smell
strong odors of alcoholic beverages and firesh marijuana. Id. As Officer Pisarek was asking for

plaintiffs identification and vehicle's registration plaintiff continued to interrupt him in a
aggressive manner. Id, 18.

Officer Pisarek advised Dawson that he had been stopped because he was driving

erratically. Id, H9. Dawson continued to argue aggressively and irrationally, and it appeared to
Pisarek that the situation was deteriorating rapidly. Id By this time Dawson was yelling, cursing,
and slamming his fists on the steering wheel, and as he did so Officer Pisarek saw him extend his

right arm toward the passenger seat and reachundera pile of trash. Id. Officer Pisarek thought
Dawson was looking for somethingon or under the seat, and he instructed Dawson to keep his

hands on the steering wheel. Id. Dawson at that point kept his hands in OfficerDawson's sight
but the officer remained concerned for his own safety and that of the public, and he requested
that an additional officer respond to the scene.

When Officer Fitzsimmons of the Hopewell Police Department arrived at the scene.

Officer Pisarek observed that Dawson became concerned and started looking around his vehicle.

Id K10; Fitzsimmons DecL, Dkt. No. 20, Ex. 3 at H4. It appeared to Pisarek that the arrival of
Officer Fitzsimmons and that fact that additional units were setting up a wide perimeter around
the area were causing Dawson to become "overly paranoid and borderline panicked." Pisarek
Decl. 110. As Officer Pisarek questioned Dawson regarding his suspicion that Dawson was

operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs, Dawson kept up his

aggressive arguments, and Officer Pisarek ordered him to turn the vehicle off and place the keys
on the dashboard. Id ^ 11. Dawson initially turned the engine off but then quickly restarted it
and removed the keys from the ignition, stating that the key did not have to be in the ignition for
the vehicle to run, and he placed the keys on the dashboard. Id.

At that point Officer Pisarek observed Dawson begin to look around "frantically" and to
reach around the passenger seat, including under the pile of trash that Pisarek had specifically
instructed him to avoid. Id Based on Dawson's frantic and irrational behavior and his own 20

years of experience as a police officer, Pisarek believed Dawson was reaching for a weapon, id,
a view that Officer Fitzsimmons shared. Fitzsimmons Decl. f 6. Officer Pisarek drew his Taser
and warned Dawson to stop reaching around the seat and to remain calm. Id Dawson looked

quickly at Pisarek, grabbed the vehicle's gearshiftand shifted intoreverse, and the vehicle began
to move backward. Id H12; Fitzsimmons Decl. f 6. The vehicle struck Officer Fitzsimmons,
who had drawn his weapon and was standing to the rear of the vehicle on the right passenger

side, Fitzsimmons Decl. 16, and when Officer Pisarek lost sight of Officer Fitzsimmons he

believed Fitzsimmons had beenrun over. Pisarek Decl. H12.'
Dawson then pulled the vehicle forward and turned it sharply to the left. Officer Spencer,
another Hopewell Police Department officer who had responded to the scene, believed at that

point that Dawson was attempting to flee. Spencer Decl., Dkt. No. 20, Ex. 4 at 17. The vehicle
hit Officer Pisarek on the right hip, catching his firearm, and Pisarek was able immediately to
disengage and maneuver away from the vehicle. Pisarek Decl. ^12. As he did so Pisarek
continued to order Dawson to stop the car. Id; Spencer Decl. H7. Nonetheless, Dawson
continued to pull the vehicle forward, but when Dawson maneuvered it onto the sidewalk
perpendicular to other parked vehicles, it became blocked by a cement wall and the convenience

store. Pisarek Decl. H13 and Ex. A. Pisarek ran up to the driver's window and continued to
command Dawson to stop driving the car and to shut it off Id Dawson did not comply, and

continued to "frantically" look around the vehicle and the parking lot, which caused Pisarek to
believe that he was about to flee the scene by backing the vehicle into his only way out, an area
of the parking lot where other officers were standing. Id and Ex. 5-12. At that point, out of
concern for his own safety and that of the officers in the area. Officer Pisarek deployed his Taser
directly at Dawson's chest, and one probe made contact with Dawson's chin. Id Pisarek turned

'In fact, the vehicle struck OfficerFitzsimmonsand knocked him backward, but Fitzsimmons
was able to maintain his balance and run toward his patrol car. Fitzsimmons Decl. 16.

the electric current off before the ten-secondTaser cycle was complete, and he pulled the wires
off the Taser cartridge by stepping on them and breakingthem. Id At that point no electricity
was flowing through the Taser, and Pisarek was able to quickly open Dawson's door and put the
vehicle into park. Id The Taser was deployed only that one time for less than ten seconds. Id

Ex. 3; Fitzsinmions Decl. § 1?
Dawson was ordered out ofthe vehicle and was handcuffed by Officer Pisarek. Pisarek
Decl. 114. A search of Dawson's person revealed a small bag of marijuana and cash in his left

pocket. Id When Officer Pisarek and other officers searched the vehicle, they located a digital
scale and several one-dollar bills in the center console and around $300.00 in cash in the glove
box. Id An unknown amount of cash was discovered in the driver's side visor/mirror area, and

numerous sandwich baggies were found in the rear slot of the passenger seat. Id A bottle of
tequila was also present. Id, Ex. 13-18,20,29. Concealed behind the passenger seat was a
loaded and chambered Smith and Wesson 40-caliber pistol. I^ Ex. 21-23. A check of
Dawson's identification disclosed that he was driving on a revoked license and was a three-time
convicted felon.

When Dawson was secured Officer Pisarek called for paramedics, who responded to the
scene. Id K15. Dawson was arrested and charged with multiple offenses, and eventually was
convicted of: 1) felony possession of a firearm by a nonviolent felon in violation of Va. Code §
18.2-308.2; 2) felony eluding or disregarding of police in violation of Va. Code § 46.2-817B; 3)

misdemeanor driving under a revoked or suspended license in violation of Va. Code § 46.2-301);

^All of the foregoing events - fi*om the time Officer Pisarek called in his intention to stop
Dawson's vehicle until the moment he deployedhis Taser - occurred in a span offour minutes. Decl.
of Dispatcher Donita Pack, Dkt. No. 20, Ex. 2.

4) one count of felony assault on a law enforcement officer in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-57;

and 5) misdemeanor possession of marijuana in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-250.1. Id. H16.
The events givingrise to this lawsuitas described above were not recorded. At the time
of the incident Officer Pisarek believed that it was being recorded by a vehicle-mounted video
system known as Silent Partner. Id. 117. However, he discovered after the fact that the camera

had been installed incorrectly in his patrol car and it failed to record the incident. Id. The units
driven that night by Officers Fitzsimmons and Spencer were not equipped with video systems.
Fitzsimmons Decl. ^ 12; Spencer Decl. 113. None of the officers was wearing a body camera.
Pisarek Decl. 117; Fitzsunmons Decl. f 12; Spencer Decl. ^ 13.

After receiving the Roseboro notice supplied by the defendant, Dawson responded by

filing his Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and a supporting brief, which consist largely
of a reiteration of the factual allegations in the complaint. [Dkt. No. 24 - 25] Although plaintiff
requests that the Court enter "judgment as a matter of law, in his favor," he also states that he

wishes the motion and brief to serve as his "opposition toward the motion for summary judgment

filed by the defense." Id. at 1,2. To the extent that plaintiff would have his submission
construed as an opposition to defendant's summary judgment request, there are two problems.
First, the motion and brief may have been filed untimely. Defendant filed his Motion for
Summary Judgment on January 6,2017 [Dkt. No. 19] and his Roseboro notice informed plaintiff
that Local Rule 7(k) requires that any response "must be filed... within twenty-one (21) days of
the date on which the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was filed...." Id. Dawson
certified that he "used the institutional mailing system" to send the motion and brief to this court
on January 20, 2017, Pet. Br. at 18, and the general rule is that a pleading submitted by an

incarcerated litigantactingpro se is deemed filed whenthe prisoner delivers the pleading to

prisonofficials to mailing. Houston v. Lack. 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Here, however, boththe
motion and brief were not date-stamped as received by the Clerk until February 7, 2017, some

three weeks after plaintiffcertified they were delivered to prisonofficials for mailing and 11 days
after they were due to be filed in this court. Even for mail originatingin a penal facility, this was
an inordinately lengthy delay.

A second problem with plaintiffs purported opposition to the summaryjudgment motion
is that it lacks notarization or a clear statement by the plaintiff that his account of events is true

and correct and a clear declaration of its authenticity. Instead, plaintiff states only: "I hereby
certify on this 20th day of January I Jaki M. Dawson excepting if anything presented was untrue

or incorrect the penalty of peijury (2017)." Only if this ambiguous statement were deemed to
subject plaintiff to the penalty ofpeijury for any misstatements can his brief be considered as an
opposition to the summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e^: see United States v. White.

366 F.3d 291,300 (4th Cir. 2004) (unsworn argument does not constitute evidence to be

considered in opposition to summary judgment motion).
Under other circumstances, information could be sought from prison mailroom logs to
determine whether plaintiff actually filed his Motion for Judgment and Brief in Support in
accordance with Rule 7(k), and he could be required to make a clearer declaration that the

information provided is true and correct and filed under the penalty of peijury. However, in this
case those steps are unnecessary, because even if the substance of plaintiffs pleadings is
considered, the defendant is still entitled to summary judgment.
11. Summary Judgment Standard of Review

Summaryjudgment "shall be rendered forthwith ifthe pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, togetherwith the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law/' Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden ofproving that judgment on

the pleadings is appropriate. S^ Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (moving
party bears the burden of persuasion on all relevant issues). To meet that burden, the moving
party must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact are present for resolution. Id at

322. Once a moving party has met its burden to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to point out the specific facts which create
disputed factual issues. Anderson v. Libertv Lobbv. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986); Matsushita
Electrical Industrial Co, v. Zenith Radio Corp.. 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In evaluating a motion

for summaryjudgment, a district court should consider the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of that

party. United States v. Diebold. Inc.. 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Those facts which the moving

party bears the burden of proving are facts which are material, " [T]he substantive law will
identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts which might affect the outcome of the

suit under the governing law will properlypreclude the entry of summaryjudgment." Anderson.
477 U.S. at 248. An issue of material fact is genuine when, "the evidence ... create[s] [a] fair
doubt; wholly speculative assertions will not suffice." Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp..

759 F.2d 355,364 (4th Cir, 1985). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate only where no
material facts are genuinely disputed and the evidence as a whole could not lead a rational fact
finder to rule for the non-moving party. Matsushita. 475 U.S. at 587.

8

III. Analysis

Defendant Officer Pisarek is plainly entitled to the summaryjudgment he seeks on both

of plaintiffs § 1983 claims.^ Plaintiffs claimthat his rights underthe Fourth Amendment were
violated when he was stopped by Officer Pisarek fails because Pisarek had at least a reasonable
suspicion that plaintiff was driving while intoxicated in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-266, which
provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor
vehicle... (ii) while such person is under he influence ofalcohol, [or]
(iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or
any other self-administered intoxicant or drug ofwhatsoever nature,
or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his
ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle...."

For Fourth Amendment purposes, "probable cause" means "facts and circumstances

within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of

reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstancesshown that the suspect has committed, is

committing, or is about to commit an offense." Michiganv. De Fillippo. 443 U.S. 31,37 (1979).
In analyzing probable cause, a court must limit its consideration to the facts and circumstances

perceived by the officer at the time of the incident. Wilson v. Kittoe. 337 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th

Cir. 2003). In the instance of a traffic stop, "[a]s a general mater, the decision to stop an
automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation

^Officer Pisarek argues asathreshold matterthattheamended complaint should bedismissed
because the sole relief plaintiff sought there was an investigation of the officer for selective
enforcement, a remedy this Court cannot provide. Def. Br. at 10. In plaintiffs Brief, however, he
seeks to add a claim for $1.2 million in damages. PI. Br. at 10. Because defendant's entitlement to
judgment on the substance of plaintiffs claims is clear, the Court chooses to forego this argument
in favor of dispensing with the claims on their merits.
United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co.. 11
F.3d 450,453 (4th Cir. 1993) (Fourth Circuit strongly favors resolution of cases on their merits).

has occurred." United States v. Williams. 945 F.Supp. 2d 665,670 (E.D. Va. 2013)(quoting
Whren v. United States. 571 U.S. 806,810 (1996)). In such instances, "probable cause is not an

indispensable component of reasonableness," id, and police "can stop and detain a person for
investigative purposes ifthey have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that
criminal activity may be afoot, even if they lack probable cause under the Fourth Amendment."
Id., (quoting United States v. Sokolow> 490 U.S. 1,7 (1989)).
In this case. Officer Pisarek observed Dawson's vehicle "riding on the yellow line" three
times before he stopped the vehicle. Pisarek Decl. 14. Dawson does not dispute that Officer
Pisarek began to follow him when his "left tire touched the line." PI. Brief at 1. While this

observation arguably could support a finding that Officer Pisarek had probable cause to stop
plaintiffs vehicle, it unquestionably supports the determination that the officer had a "reasonable
suspicion" that the occupant of the vehicle was driving while intoxicated. See Williams. 945 F.

Supp. at 674 ("Generally, an officer's observations that a car is weaving can justify a stop based
on the officer's beliefthat the driver may be impaired.") Further, in this case Officer Pisarek's

suspicions were confirmedwhen he loweredthe driver's window while interrogating Dawson
and smelled the aromas of alcohol and fresh marijuana inside the vehicle. For these reasons.

Officer Pisarek's stop of Dawson was lawful and did not violate the plaintiffs Fourth
Amendment rights, and he is entitled to summary judgment as a result.

As to plaintiffs contention that Officer Pisarek's deployment of his Taser constituted an
excessive use of force, a "'claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course

of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a person' is 'properly analyzed under
the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard.'" Estate of Armstrong ex rel.

10

Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst. 810 F.3d 892, 899 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Graham v.

Connor. 490 U.S. 386,388 (1989)). Reasonableness in this context is determinedbased strictly
on the informationpossessed by the officer at the moment that the force is employed. Elliott v.
Leavitt. 99 F.3d 640,643 (4th Cir. 1996). Thus, the objective facts "must be filtered through the
lens of the officer's perceptions at the time of the incident in question." Rovyland v. Perrv. 41

F.3d 167,173 (4th Cir. 1994). This "limits second-guessing the reasonableness of actions with
20/20 hindsight" and " limits the need for decision-makers to sort through conflicting versions of
the 'actual' facts and allows them to focus instead on what the police officer actually perceived."
Id

The Supreme Court recognizes that the determination of reasonableness under the Fourth
Amendment "requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the

individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at
stake." Graham. 490 U.S. at 396. The Court has enumerated three factors to guide this
balancing. "First we look to the 'severity of the crime at issue'; second, we examine the extent to

which 'the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others'; and third, we
consider 'whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."
Id. Here, all of these factors support the conclusion that Officer Pisarek did not violate Dawson's
Fourth Amendment rights.

Officer Pisarek stopped plaintiffs vehicle when the erratic manner in which it was being
operated made him reasonably suspicious that the driver was intoxicated. Nonetheless, he did
not immediately discharge his Taser or take any other action to subdue plaintiff. Instead, before
any force was employed, the following series of events transpired: 1) Dawson failed to roll down

11

his window when Pisarek directed him to do so; 2) after opening the window himself, Pisarek
smelled the odors of alcohol and fresh marijuana emanating from the vehicle; 3) Dawson argued

aggressively with Pisarek about the stop and became increasingly irrational until he was yelling,
cursing, and slamming his fists on the steering wheel; 4) Dawson repeatedly searched around and
underneath the passenger seat in violation of Pisarek's instructions, causing Pisarek to suspect
that he was looking for a weapon; 5) Dawson refused to turn off the vehicle in violation of

Pisarek's instructions; 6) Dawson reacted to Pisarek's warning to stop reachingaround the
vehicle and remain calm by shifting into reverse and operating the vehicle in such a way that it
struck both Pisarek and Officer Fitzsimmons; 7) Dawson then drove the vehicle forward until it

became blocked, and he ignored additional instructions from Pisarek to shut offthe engine and
stop reaching around the vehicle's interior; and 8) it appeared to Pisarek that Dawson intended to
drive the vehicle through an area where additional officers were located.
Based on these events and the perceptions they aroused in Officer Pisarek, it was
reasonable for him to conclude that if he did not take action to detain Dawson, Dawson could

have either gained control of a weapon located in the vehicle or continued to drive the vehicle in

a reckless and dangerous manner. Either eventuality would havejeopardized the safety of all of
the individuals at the scene, and it is recognized that the use of even deadly force by an officer is
not excessive where the officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of
serious physical harm to the officer himself or to others. Tennessee v. Gamer. 471 U.S. 1,11

(1985). This principle applies equally when the threat of harm comes from a motor vehicle as
well as a gun. Waterman v. Batton. 393 F.3d 471,477 (4th Cir. 2005).
Here, by the time Pisarek deployed his Taser, Dawson has clearly demonstrated his

12

willingness to use his vehicle as a weaponby strikingboth Officers Pisarekand Fitzsimmons
with it. In addition, Pisarek reasonably (and, as it turned out, correctly) suspected that Dawson

had a gun in the car. Althoughthe court in Watermandeterminedthat an officer's use of deadly
force was not excessive under such circumstances, in this case Pisarek used only a single
application of non-lethal force to subdue and detain Dawson.
As to the third factor outlined in Graham. Dawson's actions reasonably suggested to
Pisarek that he was actively attempting to resist arrest and flee the scene. As described above,
Dawson became combative and frantic when additional officers arrived at the scene to assist

Pisarek, and he repeatedly disobeyed Pisarek's instructions to turn off his engine. He also
maneuvered his vehicle during the course of the incident to a sidewalk adjacent to the

convenience store and perpendicular to the marked parking spaces, a position from which he
could have fled. Pisarek DecL, Ex. 1-4.

In short, consideration of all ofthe foregoing facts and circumstances mandates the

conclusion that Officer Pisarek's single use of non-deadly force was justified and did not
constitute a violation of Dawson's Fourth Amendment rights. See Mevers v. Baltimore Countv.
Md.. 713 F.3d 723, 733-34 (4th Cir. 2013) (holding that an officer who deployed a Taser three

times did not use excessive force when the suspect was acting erratically, holding a baseball bat,
and advancing on the officer).
Nothing in plaintiffs Brief in Support changes this conclusion. As noted above, much of

the brief amounts to a recitation of the facts as stated in the complaint, and Dawson argues based
on a partial transcript of a hearing in his criminal proceedings he attaches as an exhibit that
Officer Pisarek was "deceitful" about various details. Id. at 17. None of the circumstances with

13

which Dawson takes issue are material to the issues before this Court. For instance, he states that

he was reaching all through the vehicle because he had a sandwichon the passenger seat. Id at
7. Even if true, this detail is immaterial to the issue of reasonableness, since the act of searching

itself caused Officer Pisarek to have a reasonable fear that a weapon might be present in the

vehicle. Elliott. 99 F.3d at 643. Dawson also states that Pisarek actually tased him not once but

twice. Id. at 17. Again, even iftrue, such a use of force would not have been excessive given
the circumstances Pisarek faced. Mevers. 713 F.3d at 733-34. The greatest divergence between
the events as described by Pisarek and other officers and those asserted by Dawson is that the

plaintiff accuses Pisarek of tampering with the event report, "gather[ing] officers," and
intentionally destroying video evidence of the events in question because "the truth would have
set Dawson free." Id. at 10,15-16. "[WJholly speculative assertions" such as these which are
unsubstantiated by any evidence do not suffice to defeat summary judgment. Ross. 759 F.2d at

364. Accordingly, summary judgment will be entered in the defendant's favor on both of

plaintiffs § 1983 claims arising under the Fourth Amendment, and plaintiffs Motion for

Judgment as a Matter of Law on those claims will be denied.'*
The defendant also asserts the defense of qualified immunity. Because Dawson fails to
establish a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment, the Court need not address

"•The Courtnotesthat in the section of Dawson'sBrieftitled"ReliefSought by Plaintiff," he
asserts that he "has lost life, liberty and property do [sic] to the false accusations of Pisarek," he is
wrongfully serving a 10-year sentence, and he wishes to be reunited with his family. Id at 10. To
the extent that these statements appear to challenge the validity of plaintiffs convictions, he is
advised in deference to his pro se status that such a claim must be brought in a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after full exhaustion of available state court remedies.
Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff asserts in his Briefthat his Fourth Amendment rights were
violated by an illegal search and seizure of evidence from the vehicle, id at 4, no such claim is
before the Court as it was not pleaded in the Amended Complaint.
14

qualified immunity. See Shabazz v. Va. Dep*t of Corr.. 2013 WL 1098102, at *9 n. 20 (E.D. Va.
Mar. 15,2013); Long v. Beres. 2013 WL 139342, at *5 n. 14 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10,2013).

Lastly, at this juncture plaintiffs claims for assault and battery and false imprisonment
and/or malicious prosecution arising under Virginia state law are subject to dismissal. Where
§ 1983 claims over which a district court otherwise would have original jurisdiction are subject
to dismissal, there remains no basis to exercise supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over state

tort claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)("The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a claim... if... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
origmal jurisdiction."); White v. Ammar's. Inc.. 1988 WL 1077 at *1 (4th Cir. 1988) ("Because

there is no subject matter jurisdiction, White's additional claims regarding pendant jurisdiction
were properly dismissed.") Because both of plaintiffs § 1983 claims are subject to resolution in
defendant's favor, subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's tort claims does not exist, and they
will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
IV. Conclusioii

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion for Summaiy Judgment will be granted,

and summary judgment will be entered in his favor on plaintiffs § 1983 Fourth Amendment
claims. Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on those claims will be denied, and
his state tort claims will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). An appropriate Order
and judgment shall issue.

Entered this

St /

day of

2017.

j
.
Alexandna, Virgima

AnthonyJ.Trer.ga
United States Disti
15