McPhearson v. Anderson et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the court GRANTS in part defendant A. L. Anderson's Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSES Counts 1, 2, and 3 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his official capacity, and Count 2 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his individual capacity. Unless plaintiff submits an amended complaint sufficiently pleading "severe emotional distress" within 10 days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court will dismiss Count 3 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his individual capacity. The court DENIES defendant A. L. Anderson's Motion to Dismiss in regard to Count 1 against defendant A. L. Anderson in his individual capacity. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 7/5/2012. (rsim, )
RLED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUL
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
5 2012
Norfolk Division
ANTONIO DEMOND MCPHEARSON,
ACTION NO.
A.
L.
ANDERSON,
M.
D.
2:12cv244
and
ANDERSEN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
This
Motion
matter
to
comes
Dismiss
Dismiss"),
filed
on
June
originally
of
of
City
filed
M.
D.
See
suit
Compl.
1
to
Ill
this
1446.
May
1,
2012.1
his
A.
Plaintiff,
in
March 26,
L.
Anderson's
("Motion
Antonio
the
on
Anderson
A.
L.
12(b)(6)
Complaint
Virginia,
defendant
2-3.
court
Defendant
2012.
Defendant
Support
of
Codefendant
an
Codefendant
on
A.
Plaintiff
A.
his
L.
M.
separate
D.
April
L.
to
30,
M.
D.
2012,
Anderson
has
Anderson
Motion
2 The two defendants
in
Rule
on
Circuit
2012.
to
Demond
Court
Plaintiff
and
codefendant
Andersen2 in both their individual and official capacities.
action
§
court
to
5,
filed
Norfolk,
against
the
Pursuant
McPhearson,
the
before
ORDER
not
also
Dismiss
Andersen
pursuant
consented
responded
filed
an
("Brief
to
removed
to
to
28
U.S.C.
removal
on
Motion
to
the
accompanying
in
the
Brief
in
Support").
in this case have confusingly similar names.
Andersen's
Motion
Memorandum Opinion
to
and
Dismiss
Order.
will
be
addressed
Dismiss,
is
ripe
and
for
the
deadline
suit
identification
or
about
assaulted
related
1i
4.
FACTUAL AND
arises
and
November 24,
by
to
her
the
defendant
A.
the
for
L.
Barbara
to
assailant,
Plaintiff
was
Andersen,
the
was
passenger
and
Circuit
a
matter
L.
Anderson
Demond
subsequently
he
ran
stopped
a
car
plaintiff's
warrant.
See
id.
«n
result
Court
of
of
these
the
City
in
16-18.
the
Norfolk,
of
favor.
filed
Virginia,
6.
the
alleges
in
Ill
to
7-9.
M.
plaintiff
Plaintiff
"5!
information
Id.
which
and
Id.
information
which
plaintiff
Id.
alleged
codefendant
information,
events,
of
the
plaintiff
selected
by
not
Virginia.
McPhearson. ]"
arrested
is
description
typing
and
who
officer.
and
on
allegedly
Department,
McPherson,
"began
system
was
Police
name
Roshawn
that
Carter,
responding
the
asserts
Norfolk,
Barbara
the
inaccurate
McPherson,
the charges were eventually dismissed in his
As
this
of
Carter
Norfolk
provided
computer
after
Donaesha
plaintiff,
case
Plaintiff
in
[Antonio
Plaintiff
arrest.
plaintiff,
Antonio
A.
department's
outstanding
passed;
unfortunate
Roshawn
called
Carter
an
Antonio
Anderson
defendant
of
father,
mother,
that
has
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2009,
instant
victim's
alleged
out
mistaken
According
After
response
review.
I.
This
for
D.
was
matched
alleges
Id.
an
that
II 29.
suit
which
a
in
the
suit
was
subsequently removed to this court.3
causes
of
official
of
42
of
action
and
false
individual
U.S.C.
claim
against
§
1983;
of
15 31-53.
Defendant
the
Procedure
2
3
A.
L.
Anderson,
1
of
a
now
to
prejudice,
law claim
common
law
distress.
moves
to
his
violations
Virginia
this
Federal
and
both
common
emotional
Anderson
in
alleges
a Virginia
alleges
pursuant
with
L.
Count
alleges
infliction
Complaint
12(b)(6),
A.
capacities:
and Count
intentional
dismiss
defendant
Count
imprisonment;
The Complaint asserts three
court
Rule
award
Id.
of
him
to
Civil
judgment.
Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss.
II.
Federal
part,
"[a]
...
a
is
detailed
and
of
550
dismiss,
a
accepted
as
its
that
entitled
Twombly,
on
Civil
and plain
factual
elements
of
pleading
short
pleader
labels
Rule
to
ANALYSIS
Procedure
states
a
statement
[A]
a
U.S.
face.'"
3 See supra at 1.
the
544,
555
(2007).
'state
Ashcroft
not
contain
a
v.
have
more
than
U.S.
of
the
Corp.
v.
motion
a
to
factual
that
662,
the
not
Atl.
survive
relief
556
that
need
Bell
sufficient
claim to
Iqbal,
showing
contain
recitation
do."
"To
must
"requires
formulaic
will
to
claim
8
in pertinent
relief
complaint
Rule
action
must
provides,
for
The
of
complaint
true,
of
but
conclusions[.]
cause
claim
relief."
allegations,
8 (a)
is
matter,
plausible
678
(2009)
(quoting
that
to
a
Twombly,
"plaintiff
draw
for
550
the
the
U.S.
pleads
reasonable
misconduct
is,
It
facts
demonstrating
U.S.
at
570).
factual
therefore,
with
a
that
^Id^
not
Facial
content
inference
alleged."
556) .
consist[ency]"
at
"sheer
unlawful
that
the
(citing
enough
plausibility
allows
defendant
Twombly,
for
a
550
possibility"
conduct.
Id.
the
is
plaintiff
court
liable
U.S.
to
or
(citing
means
at
allege
"mere[]
Twombly,
550
557).
The
Supreme
Court,
in
Twombly
and
Iqbal,
offered
guidance
to courts evaluating a motion to dismiss:
In keeping with these principles a court considering a
motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying
pleadings
that,
because
they
are
no
more
than
conclusions,
are
not
entitled to the assumption of
truth.
While
legal
conclusions
can
provide
the
framework
of
a
complaint,
they
must
be
supported
by
factual
allegations.
When
there
are
well-pleaded
factual
allegations,
a
court
should
assume
their
veracity
and
then
determine
whether
they
plausibly
give
Iqbal,
556
alleged
light
417
in
F.3d
.
.
be
to an
U.S.
the
most
whether
.
rise
at
a
420
complaint
a
679.
complaint
favorable
418,
entitlement
to
That
as
the
(4th
to relief.
true
is,
the
and
views
plaintiff.
Cir.
states
context-specific
a
2005).
plausible
task
that
court
accepts
those
facts
Venkatraman
Overall,
claim
v.
facts
in
REI
the
Sys.,
" [d] etermining
for
requires
relief
the
will
reviewing
court
to
Iqbal,
556
A.
draw
on
its
U.S.
at
679.
Violations
of 42
Plaintiff
judicial
alleges
relation
to
deprived
him
rights.
Compl.
deprived
b)
the
of
his
of
right
law;
and
Defendant
his
f
the
not
c)
A.
Fourth,
to
be
to
right
Anderson
claim
against
rise
to
a
claim under
1.
arrest
or
No.
Oct.
enforcement
seizure
of
of
U.S.C.
free
argues
that
the
§
court
facts
so
1983."
false
Mot.
he
was
seizures;
due
process
arrest."
should
alleged
that
in
Amendment
argues
without
from
violation,
Anderson
unreasonable
liberty
the
1983
L.
A.
plaintiff
from
§
Fourteenth
be
because
U.S.C.
under
2011
2011).
officers
unreasonable."
42
and
free
1983
imprisonment
I:llcv97,
an
be
U.S.C.
42
seizures
28,
sense."
do
Count
Dismiss
Id.
dismiss
"not
1
5
give
fails
to
9.
Capacity
under
false
unreasonable
Va.
42
Individual
"Actions
Milan,
him
common
defendant
Fifth,
to
constitutional
state
that
deprived
this
a
of
Specifically,
right
the
L.
arguing
32.
and
1983
violations
arrest,
of
"a)
U.S.C §
experience
"The
from
individual
Brooks
v.
are
the
U.S.
Dist.
of
claims
125334,
of
false
analyzed
Amendment."
LEXIS
Fourth
effected
upon
properly
Fourth
making
City
based
at
as
Day
*11
v.
(E.D.
Amendment
prohibits
law
unreasonable
seizures,
and
without
probable
Winston-Salem,
85
cause
F.3d
is
178,
183
(4th
Cir.
seized him
probable
his
1996).
'pursuant
cause
favor
and
are
that
Prince
George's
was
85
liable
statements
arrest.
police
(quoting
the
the
truth
objectively
Burke
v.
not
...
621,
terminated
claim
630
police
supported by
alleging
Fourth Amendment.'"
claims
against
{4th
Cir.
an
at
of
*15
a
such
may
at
can
or
630
405
08-3351,
22,
officer
the
Cir.
or
2011)
can
of
false
underlying
2007)
{"[A]
reckless
from
liability
other
F.3d
officer
acted
all
the
serious
had
with
doubts
information
a
probable
evidence,
obvious
be
as
to
he
high
degree
falsity,
the
reasons
established
affiant
the
to
reported.
truth
doubt
by
66,
officers.")
86
(1st
of
evidence
awareness
that
is,
must
have
of
the
his
be
with
himself
conduct
Walpole,
No.
Aug.
cause
(4th
insulate
officers
intentionally
intentionally
reasonable
disregard
Minn.
statements
not
of
Fraser,
non-arresting
F.3d
acts
v.
(D.
reckless
if
Town
statement's]
a
2007)
2005)).
Reckless
in
Miller v.
non-arresting
Galarnyk
475
who
that
183-84).
However,
Miller,
was
proceedings
a
F.3d
93794,
omissions
for
the
475
results
defendant
disregard
through
LEXIS
the
See
of
generally
cases).
or
state
allegations
that
criminal
to
F.3d at
See
Dist.
for
the
seizure
fail.
{collecting
that
Cnty.,
Unreasonable
U.S.
process
violative
(quoting Brooks,
2011
legal
to
plaintiff's
sufficient
seizure
generally
"A
when
that
of
[a
viewing
entertained
statements
accuracy
of
or
the
Cir.
Id.
at
627
(internal
be material,
cause."
"[n]ot
that
Id.
at
every
F.2d
may
363,
provide
F.3d
at
A.
mistake'
a
U.S.
plaintiff
to
a
social
Anderson
incorrectly
computer
arrest
of
a
Of
violation
police
course,
for
William
which
Cnty.,
officer
a
753
'allegations
of
will
not
Miller,
violation."
475
(quoting
defendant
Roshawn
his
and
car,
Franks
with
v.
date
of
the
potential
See
his
leading
pursuant
physical
as
alleges
a
ff
7-8.
defendant
Antonio
in
codefendant
to
well
residences,
Compl.
information
to
alleged
birth,
two
plaintiff's,
"typing
Anderson
McPherson,
plaintiff
selected
plaintiff
L.
record.
criminal
system,"
A.
provided
number,
when
the
of probable
warrant
plaintiff's
was
information,
information
department's
Andersen's
this
arrest
Prince
that
he
of
his
finding
"must
(1978)).
security
of
statements
omitted).
original)
Antonio
description
McPhearson,
171
description
to
in
where
name,
v.
constitutional
alleges
call
.
an
by
154,
response
L.
"A
438
general
of
1985).
for
.
constitutional
(emphasis
description,
In
a
Cir.
innocent
assailant's
some
issuance
627-28
responded
and
in
.
Such
quotations
(4th
or
Here,
a
(internal
Thompson
basis
Delaware,
as
628
the
sought."
364
a
omitted).
necessary to
constitutes
be
negligence
is,
mix-up
automatically
remedy
quotations
warrant
Demond
to
M.
the
D.
naming
plaintiff.
was
"for
S_ee
a
entirely
crime
warrant
(alleging
"[t]he
oppressive
4
plaintiff
conduct
A.
cause."
of
argues
in
it
39.
"was
However,
that
id.
warrant
matched
plaintiff
alleges
willful,
37.
his
ff
the
the
was
11
that
arrest
See
Finally,
Id.
the
allegations
after
defendants
Anderson
33,
name.
arrested
that
later
flfl
his
his
reckless."
L.
and
Id^
in
in
was
alleges
commit,"
information).5
and/or
Defendant
not
issued
identification
that
Plaintiff
acknowledges
was
that
did
probable
tacitly
itself
11 18.4
he
without
plaintiff
his
id_;_
In
22
malicious,
turn,
Motion
18,
to
defendant
Dismiss
and
accompanying
Brief
in
Support
that
plaintiff
has
failed
to
allege a causal link between defendant A. L. Anderson's actions
and the resulting warrant and arrest.
See Mot. Dismiss n 8-9;
Br.
Supp.
3-4.
Although
the
court
reads
the
Complaint
as
alleging causation,
see Compl.
1
33,
the court may also consider
the warrant
itself.
See Carter v.
Baltimore Cnty.,
39 Fed.
App'x 930, 933 (4th Cir. 2002)
(unpublished)
("A district court
may consider public
records
in deciding a motion
to dismiss
without
converting
the motion
to one
for
summary judgment.")
(quoting Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 644 (6th Cir.
2001)).
The
face
of
the
warrant
clearly
names
plaintiff,
"Antonio Demond Mcphearson," as the accused,
and was issued on
the basis of the sworn statements of "Anderson, A L NPD."
See
Warrant,
ECF
there
a
A.
is
L.
Seemingly
in
M.
Plaintiff
was
Virginia."
simply
he
Norfolk.
at
at
D.
the
this
not
person
SI
Regardless,
alleged
the
plaintiff
on
court
issuance
the
the
has
8
.
the
later
.
.
warrant
the
is
sought
examined
See
out
likely
rest
alleges
indicated
warrant
it
assailant
face.
the
that
defendant
and
litigation.
However,
with
satisfied
between
of
Complaint
by
is
causation
"falsely
court
its
the
of
the
sought
41.
consistent
the
Thus,
stage of
Andersen
Compl.
restating,
clearly names
and
contradiction,
See
was
2.
allegation
actions
arrest
codefendant
that
3-1,
Anderson's
subsequent
5
No.
sufficient
of
Norfolk,
is
Complaint,
the
crime
warrant,
supra note
that
plaintiff
his
for
the
of
that
4.
in
which
A.
L.
Anderson
negligence,"
argues
that
which
plaintiff has
does
not
constitutional violation.
Consideration
presents
the
of
Mot.
the
court
pleadings
in
totality,
defendant
A.
L.
"innocent
mistake"
Moreover,
claim
sound
(discussing
person
a
would
disregard
failure
the
true.
Iqbal,
November
24,
voluminous
Antonio
the
to
of
court
must
556
Motion
2009,
information
Roshawn
as defendant A.
Support,
plaintiff
SI
alleged
10.
care
at
A.
yet
a
than
of
ensure
Anderson
a
court
stage
the
can
in
the
as
purpose
of
that
presented
sworn
34
facts
accepts
alleged
provided
correct
alleged
was
the
the
the
court
than
SI
that
for
his
Compl.
this
Thus,
an
of
negligence
while
at
that
names.6
portions
See
the
make
identical
certain
the
allegation
skeptical
more
plaintiff's
L.
of
Examining
quite
conclusions
and
on
with
assailant,
statement
on
L. Anderson wryly notes in his Brief in
himself
assailant
to
679.
1983
task.
However,
at
level
§
disregard.
identifying
McPherson,
this
nearly
Dismiss,
defendant
6 Indeed,
the
to
of
anything
accept
U.S.
the
allegation
"due
alleged "simple
9.
Complaint,
an
legal
11
is
two
arrested").
litigation,
considering
did
reckless
plaintiff's
See
court
confusing
or
be
Dismiss
the
akin
to
difficult
plaintiff's
more
intentionality
a
Anderson
parsing
rise
sufficiency
with
at most
one
confused
point
in
his
his
own
name
with
Complaint.
that
See
of
Compl.
which
11
the
7-8;
warrant
Warrant,
Further,
and/or
if
prosecution
cause
that
the
has
"this
defendant
Supp.
5,
plead
that
a
but
reckless
statements
at
627.
such
The
Anderson
the
issuance
must
1983
court
that
of
DENY
claim
finds
the
he
is
was
defendant
the
that
against
bad
him
plaintiff
the
and
L.
in
or
could
this
Anderson's
time.
10
with
or
full
probable
that
support
that
intent,"
need
Miller,
have
only
or
material
Br.
with
false
475
F.3d
a
plausible
juncture,
defendant
plaintiff's
alleged
45
protests
evil
See
1
"procured
"deliberately
information
assailant,
plaintiff's
his
and
making
could,
id.
plaintiff
arrest.
at
.
plausibly
in
"willful"
Anderson
Anderson
acted
Compl.
facts
reasonable
needed;
assume
not
was
See
.
motive
truth"
selected
A.
.
that
Anderson
warrant
L.
L.
not
must
A.
any
A.
plaintiff's
willfully
knowledge
court
§
as
without
any
L.
for
to
court
A.
the
A.
disregard
if,
full
with
action
Plaintiff's
falsely
facts
motive
defendant
claim
L.
alleged
acted
leading
was
See
4.
conclusions.
Defendant
not
37.
issued.
note
such
defendant
Plaintiff
whatsoever").
plaintiff
1
was
supra
that
legal
that
charge
arrest
2;
Compl.
these
of
at
alleges
See
affirmatively
knowledge
3-1,
plaintiff
support
{alleging
plaintiff's
ECF No.
"reckless."
true,
the
for
individual
leading
arrest.
Motion
to
with
Thus,
Dismiss
capacity
at
to
the
the
this
2.
Official
A
claim
capacity
See
is
Hafer
2;
actions
A.
L.
L.
be
against
to
a
allegation
in
A.
under
Anderson
Rule
a
in
of
the
Monell
of
claim
claims
are
unless
Pep't
action
nature
official
§
of
of
a
treated
as
defendant
1983
Servs.,
void
of
claim
is
cannot
pursuant
Soc.
possible
capacity
Procedure
of
Compl.
caused
Norfolk,
to
L.
against
"A municipality
City
link
A.
City
See
against
is
plaintiff's
his
a
Complaint
the
the
capacity
some
v.
employer.
Virginia.
1983
of
for
question.
capacity.
Section
causal
Common Law False
committed
official
official
Defendant
plaintiff's
state
policy
Civil
Plaintiff's
to
Plaintiff's
Thus,
Federal
his
official
tort."
of
L.
B.
his
policy
violation.
in
in
his
public
officer
incident
failed
(1978).
single
the
the
in
(1991).
police
Therefore,
municipal
691
25
has
constitutional
658,
21,
a
official
against
City of Norfolk,
liable
official
U.S.
during
public
action
as
2.
a
the
Anderson
held
502
Anderson
Plaintiff
A.
an
employed
Supp.
defendant
as
Melo,
Virginia,
Br.
against
treated
was
Norfolk,
1
brought
v.
Anderson
Capacity
any
let
a
436
to
[the]
U.S.
reference
alone
any
constitutional
against
DISMISSED
defendant
pursuant
to
12(b)(6).
Imprisonment
next
Virginia
claim
is
common
that
law
11
defendant
tort
of
A.
false
L.
Anderson
imprisonment.
Compl.
1
39.
restraint,
probable
In
seizure
cause
constituted
1.
A.
relief
restraint
of
be
one
law
falls
granted.
person
False
of
the
legal
149
906,
921
(1928).
"The
person
without
of
the
execution
of
lawful
71,
75
cause
(1925).
"does
imprisonment"
McKay
Chevrolet
Motley
v.
Va.
1968)).
warrant,
in
Va.
an
process."
give
when
it
action
is
a
&
false
a
and
Va.
Co.,
a
without
12
v.
of
is
or
its
face."
265,
287
person
F.
the
the
action
266
illegal
unlawful
14 3
790,
cause,"
287
an
is
F.
Va.
probable
for
(1989)
Supp.
Motley,
Owens,
Coughlan
procuring
probable
another
v.
procured without
upon
direct
Roberts,
of
imprisonment.
792.
Co.
cause
Cir.
"the
Co.
action
against
claim
is
Grant
process,
and
on
even
and
the
warrant
Mfg.
Therefore,
of
a
liberty
W.T.
lawful
to
claim
stating
physical
gist
"regular
18
Hardware
for
without
whatsoever
imprisonment
Kress
rise
Inc.,
"maliciously
of
justification."
Importantly,
not
excuse
imprisonment
short
adequate
detention
entirely
the
Id.
false
without
Va.
legal
was
"[t]hat
Capacity
Anderson
can
alleges
Plaintiff
sufficient
common
L.
by
arrest
any
Individual
defendant
plaintiff
imprisonment."
Plaintiff's
which
and
or
false
support,
false
v.
Jim
(quoting
792
(W.D.
erroneous
not
liable
Supp.
at
Here,
plaintiff
imprisoned
him,
based
demonstrate
that
outstanding
warrant
accompanying
the
warrant
8;
was
alleged
lack
39.
Civil
the
Procedure
2.
against
indeed,
the
of
altogether
sovereign
230,
240
certainly
police
allegations
defendant
did
Norfolk
from
force.
L.
and
supra
plaintiff
See
even
false
that
7-
Anderson's
arrest.
pursuant
are
if
and
an
Compl.
true,
are
imprisonment
Federal
to
in
of
any
of
v.
of
13
regarding
City
of
a
to
Rule
the
the
the
is
be
of
role
of
immune
doctrine
Alexandria,
function
264
of
Va.
complaint
providing
held
a
capacity;
city
citizen's
cannot
support
official
under
City
governmental
the
his
Further,
action
Niese
Accordingly,
in
facts
claim.
investigation
the
insufficient
Anderson
assert
sort
See
("The
L.
this
this
of
A.
not
in
immunity.
part
DISMISSED
of
5
note
allegation
A.
of
an
Capacity
these
(2002)
is
defendant
theory
true,
to
discussion
allegations,
a
supra
no
see
the
if
12(b)(6).
plaintiff
City
under
claim
face,
falsely
pursuant
contains
for
even
See
identification
cause
Anderson
which,
name.
on
plaintiff's
Official
Likewise,
claim
probable
L.
arrested
its
focuses
actionable
and
on
erroneous
Thus,
not
Virginia,
of
was
Complaint
regular
plaintiff
A.
allegations
plaintiff's
The
willfully
simply
in
not
alleged
33,
on
defendant
plaintiff
text.
instead,
n
alleges
liable
is
a
for
the
alleged
intentional
officer.]").
false
Federal
against
capacity,
Rule of
and
Civil
infliction
of
Anderson.
upon
and
that
conduct
distress
resulted.
responds
that
by plaintiff's
1.
A
distress,
four
factual
of
"the
it
against
and
offends
morality;"
"the
conduct
"a
state
L.
a
police
claim
Anderson
DISMISSED
for
in
his
pursuant
to
distress
was
are
A.
the
L.
Anderson
distress
likely
and
conclusory
Supp.
unwarranted
result;"
that
Defendant
Br.
A.
L.
"baseless,
outrageous;"
47-51.
intentional
emotional
inflicted
on
of
defendant
defendant
arrest
1?[
claim
against
that
and
law
A.
and
that
emotional
L.
Anderson
not
supported
of
emotional
4-5.
Capacity
unaccompanied
reckless;"
common
allegations.
action
elements:
a
allegations
Individual
cause
his
Compl.
these
is
[a
12(b) (6).
intentionally
extreme
to
A.
distress
"emotional
"was
claim
alleges
through
failed
by
Infliction of Emotional Distress
emotional
Plaintiff"
charges;"
of
the
brings
Plaintiff
"deliberately
has
Procedure
plaintiff
committed
defendant
Common Law Intentional
Finally,
the
plaintiff
imprisonment
official
C.
Thus,
torts
the
for
by
intentional
infliction
physical
injury,
requires
wrongdoer's
conduct
was
was
outrageous
generally
causal
accepted
connection
14
and
a
intentional
intolerable
standards
between
showing
the
of
in
or
that
decency
wrongdoer's
conduct
and
the
emotional
distress;"
emotional
distress
was
338,
342
(1974).
"[S]uch
torts
Ruth
v.
237
366,
been
found
Fletcher,
only
character,
possible
so
of
241
23,
Here,
that
plausibly
defendant
must
A.
See
plaintiff
erroneous
9-10.
to
be
favored
in
"the
215
the
Va.
law."
"[L]iability
been
as
so
regarded
has
outrageous
to
go
as
community."
of
beyond
Russo
v.
in
all
atrocious,
this
stage
factual
U.S.
at
L.
Anderson
the
warrant
Therefore,
and
do
in
679.
was
the
information,
correct
not
the
elements
and
White,
assailant
has
15
that
claim
a
cause
the
court
had
full
assailant
to
the
arrest.
alleged
as
assumes
of
again
true.
that
information
knowledge
when
issuance
See
action
court
the
host
legal
of
Complaint
a
of
Although
the
with
facts
plaintiff's
support
and
alleged
plaintiff
a
in
provided
plaintiff's
of
such,
As
leading
alleges
distress.
litigation
allegations
alleged
not
three
barely,
emotional
and
at
albeit
first
is
was
plaintiff's
the
conclusory
556
identifying
and
Anderson
all
A.
has
that
Eldridge,
(1989).
degree,
sufficiently,
out
L.
own,
Igbal,
defendant
set
are
accept
in
v.
not
373
civilized
infliction
allegations
their
a
are
last,
(1991).
plaintiff
intentional
on
in
Womack
conduct
decency,
intolerable
27
the
extreme
utterly
Va.
Va.
where
and
bounds
severe."
and
selecting
of
discussion
sufficient
that
the
supra
factual
support,
at
Anderson
acted
to
this
point,
arrested,
distress
was
48-4 9.
specific
under
and
the
"knew
likely
Although
the
allegations,
some
to
innocent
person,
in
a
to
However,
for
pled
to
expected
allegation,
has
been
and
has
of
substantial
substantial
wholly
33,
finds
of
that
to
into
his
community;
his
profession;
sums
frivolous
of
has
from
has
his
money
charge;
has
16
being
215
supra
to
Va.
SI
that
53.
note
342.
also
4.
has
not
a
claim
Virginia
emotional
stress
reasonable
Incorporated
he
credit
and
been
been
been
among
hindered
required
business
to
reputation
disrepute
defend
caused
and
in
to
to
much
the
the
spend
expend
against
an
has
under
no
of
at
state
distress
such
false
"utterly
plaintiff
"the
least
a
of
plaintiff
51;
that
public
his
away
is
of
distress"
Compl.
claims
injured
40,
at
detention
Womack,
emotional
generally
that,
and
level
that
emotional
brought
time
arrest
Compl.
plaintiff's
procurement
the
Slfl
endure."
greatly
of
practice
to
finds
L.
emotional
See
of
A.
plaintiff
that
skeptical
knowing
to
causing
conduct.
further
Defendants
plaintiff
been
members
by
the
defendant
known
outrageousness,
court
Plaintiff
of
community."
and
alleges
have
remains
a
rise
infliction
caused
should
erroneous
"severe
Plaintiff
his
in
See Compl.
the
law.
be
an
intent
intentional
could
recklessly
court
civilized
alleged causation.
sufficiently
or
court
could
addition
that
result"
circumstances,
leading
In
allegation
or
the
warrant,
intolerable
his
intentionally
be
S13I
for
this
anxiety
man
into
and
mental
anguish;
public scorn,
Id.
ridicule,
has
been
made
the
object
of
and humiliation.
SI 46.7
Nonetheless,
of
and
his
emotional
3:10cv52,
Aug.
distress
2011
22,
U.S.
2011).
emotional
Kreutzer,
is
271
Va.
because
anguish
.
.
self-esteem
and
of
the
Russo,
241
and
Va.
at
.
"extreme
this
stage.
See
short
of
v.
dismissal
trauma
sleeping,
nature.
Harris
(affirming
and
extreme
mental
loss
of
psychological
mortification,
humiliation,
reputation"
(affirming
of
Va.
additional
.
to
that
fall
psychological
.
(W.D.
distress
(2006)
requiring
symptoms
Michalski,
*40
claims
of
difficulty
injury
28
to
initial
"severe
at
v.
demonstrates
bar
204-05
depression,
disgrace,
law
concrete
Jackson
93361,
allegations
at
alleged
detail."
LEXIS
counseling
shame,
any
strong
nightmares,
and
"not
case
188,
allegations
treatment
a
dismissed
.
in
Virginia
generalized
claims
has
Dist.
distress"
Plaintiff's
other
plaintiff
dismissal
were
insufficient);
because
allegations
7 Plaintiff also asserted in his § 1983 claim that he
suffered
not
general
limited
injuries,
damage
mental
Compl.
and
SI
special
of
damages
liberty,
humiliation,
standing
pain
fees,
personal
36.
and
and
With
harm is
for
and
anguish,
bondsmen
business
the
which
in
pain
but
and
embarrassment,
the
community,
emotional
[and]
fees,
distress,
away
time
from
affairs.
exception
identical
including,
physical
reputation
to
injuries,"
asserted
and
loss
inconvenience,
attorneys'
his
to:
of
unspecified
no
supporting
to
that
17
facts
"physical
are
discussed above.
alleged,
pain
the
that
and
plaintiff
its
"was
'physical
unable
to
Russo,
"[t]here
any
nervous,
symptoms,'
concentrate
is
objective
confined
home
written
the
Russo,
fails
severity
cannot
plaintiff's
against
of
"severe
L.
In
by
the
an
as
[plaintiff]
in
had
stress,
that
[plaintiff]
was
that
[plaintiff]
lost
law.
the
facts
actual
will
his
amended
Complaint
to
Because
the
court
distress"
was
that
detailed
in
and
Here,
the
short,
Complaint
Anderson
emotional
that
or
Virginia
the
submits
Official
These
against
8
under
activities,
stress
court
severity
dismiss
complaint
ten
support
the
individual
within
as
of
Count
3
capacity,
sufficiently
(10)
days
of
the
this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
2.
again,
caused
28.
distress,
A.
plaintiff
pleading
date
alleged
example,
attention,
at
experienced
insufficient) .
sufficiently
from
from
hospital,
Va.
element
defendant
unless
a
plead
determine
for
injury
in
241
to
were
claim,
medical
or
sleep,
withdrew
work"
physical
sought
income."8
at
no
[plaintiff]
at
could not
allegations
defendant
plaintiff
Defendant
does
the
alleged
all
occurred,
arrest,"
Capacity
not
loss
as
as
A.
L.
did
are
Anderson
not
assert
describe
of
his
result
suffered. ~~See Compl.
in
his
any
financial
job,
plaintiff
a
insufficient
n 24-28.
any
18
support
official
facts
harm
attorney
himself
of
to
a
claim
capacity.
regarding
the
Once
role
in
his
Complaint,
fees,
and
bondsman
states,
severe
"as
a
result
emotional
of
but
costs
of
distress
the
he
the
City
of
is
immune
city
264
Va.
failed
A.
is
at
to
L.
Norfolk
this
altogether
240;
a
claim
Anderson
in
this
supra
for
moreover,
sort
at
false
his
pursuant
claim;
from
discussion
state
DISMISSED
in
Thus,
imprisonment
Rule
See
and
of
the
Niese,
plaintiff
against
capacity,
Federal
again,
action.
13-14.
official
to
of
once
has
defendant
the
Civil
claim
Procedure
12(b) (6) .
III.
For
the
defendant
Counts
in
an
A.
1,
official
his
foregoing
L.
2,
and
Opinion
and
and
A.
L.
defendant
ten
Count
1
A.
against
The
Memorandum Opinion
IT
Norfolk,
IS
SO
(10)
the
L.
2
Further,
of
court
in
his
and Order
A.
unless
the
date
counsel
to
and
A.
L.
this
Count
Dismiss
in
forward
for all
a
submits
Memorandum
3
against
The
in
his
his
emotional
capacity.
to
in
Anderson
"severe
of
part
DISMISSES
plaintiff
dismiss
Anderson
Clerk
in
Anderson
defendant
Motion
L.
the
to
L.
individual
Anderson's
DIRECTS
A.
pleading
will
GRANTS
Dismiss,
against
days
defendant
court
to
sufficiently
Anderson
DENIES
capacity.
Count
court
defendant
capacity.
Order,
the
Motion
against
complaint
within
defendant
U y
3
individual
distress"
reasons,
Anderson's
capacity,
amended
CONCLUSION
court
regard
to
individual
copy
of
this
parties.
ORDERED.
/S/
Rebecca Beach Smith
Virginia
19
United States District Judge
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?