Wesley v. Winchester City Police Officer Connor Malloy, No. 7:2018cv00614 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 4/29/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFICE U.S. DIST.O URL AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR IC T O F W R GIN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N AF2 3C 2215 JULIA ..DUD BY: , w ,- sj jy D EM O STH EN ESE A N TW YA N W ESLEY , CA SE N O .7:18CV 00614 Plaintiff, M EM O R AN DU M O PIM ON V. W INCH ESTER CITY POLICE OFFICER C O M ER M A LL O Y , By: H on.G len E.C onrad Senior U nited State:D istrictJudge D efendant. . Dem osthenese Antwyan W esley,a Virgirlia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed this civil rightsaction tmder42 U.S.C.j1983,allegingthatthedefendantpoliceoftkerfailed toprotect W esleywhenjailofscialsusçd excessiveforceagainsthim.Thedefendant,ColmorM alloy,has sled am otion to dismiss.W esley responded byfling asecond nm ended complaint,towhich the defendantobjects. Afterreview oftherecord,the courtconcludesthatthemotion to amend is appropriately granted,and themotion to dism issm ustbedenied. Rule15(a)(1)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureprovidesthatapirtyl2ayamendits pleading once as a m atter ofcourse within 21 daysafter itis served or within 21 days aftera motion to dism issisfiled.W esley filed hisfirstam ended complaint,in responseto a courtorder, ' before the casewasserved on the defendant. He filed the second amendéd complaintwithin 21 daysafterthedefendant'smotion todism iss.Accordingly,thecourtfm dsthenm endm entproper Wesley v. Winchester City Police Officer Connor Malloy Doc. 24 undçr Rule 15(a).1 Furthermore,for reasons stated herein, the cotzrt cnnnot find that the proposed nmendm entisfutile. 1 M oreover,wherean nmendmentdoesnotcomportwithRule 15(a)(1),itmay begrantedifthe opposingpartyconsentsorthecourtgrantsleave.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.15(a)(2)CThecourtshouldfreely givelçavewhenjusticesorequires.''). Dockets.Justia.com RK II. In the second amended complaint,W esley alleges that on February 8,2018,M alloy = ested W esley plzrsuantto a caoias. During a routine body search,M alloy and other officers found no illegal contraband on W esley's person. M alloy then transported W esley to the Northwestem VirginiaRegionalJail(çjai1''). Inthe sally port,jailoftkialsconducted asecond bodysearchofW esley'sperson.M alloyççinterruptedthesearchbysteppingfolrqwardum avelling llisfistwhich contained an nmotmtofmarijuanlaqstating G'l-hiswillbea felony.''' Sec.Am . Compl.3,ECFNo.21.W esleyresponded,EThat'snotmine,youjustplantedthat.''Id. (J)ailox cials then began assaulting (W esley) while screaming stop resisting (which (W esleyj claimshe wasnot) with OflkerConnorM alloy stillpresent. PlaintiffWesleywasthen draggedtorestraininjEsicjchairwherehewasplaced foranIlnknown nmotmtoftime.Eventually apailbfficialjhadhim releasedand stated directly to plaintiff W esley he couldn'tand wouldn't be charged with a felony drug charge. JZ W esley sues M alloy under j1983 for monetary damages,contending that (1) M alloy (Gintentionally and cruelglqy planted drugson (W esleyq...provokingly stating felony oharges would befiledy''and (2)M alloyfailedtoprotectW esleywhenjailofficialsassaultedhim.Id.at 1-2. 111. To survive a motion to dismiss (under Rule 12(b)(6) ofthe FederalRules of Civil Procedurej,acomplaintmustcontainsufficientfacttzalmatter,acceptedastrue,tostateaclaim to reliefthatisplausibleonitsface.''Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).2 Thecourtmust I:acceptastruea11well-pleaded allegationsand view the complaintin the lightm ostfavorableto theplaintiff.'' Venkatraman v.RElSys..lnc.,417F.3d 418,420 (4th Cir.2005).Section 1983 2 Thecourthas om itted internalquotation m arks,alterationsorcitationshere and throughoutthis m em orandum opinion,unlessothenvisenoted. permitsan aggrieved party to file a civilaction againstaperson foractionstaken undercolorof statelaw thatviolatedhisconstitutionalrights. SeeCooperv.Sheehan,735 F.3d 153,158(4th Cir.2013).W hen aplaintiffraisesacivilrightsissueandflesacomplaintprox ,thecourtmust liberally construellispleadings. SeeSmith v.Smith,589 F.3d736,738(4th Cir.2009)(citing Hainesv.Kem er,404 U.S.519,520 (1972)(reversing dismissalofcivildghtscomplaintupon tinding thatpro K plaintic sallegations,Gthoweverinartfullypleaded,are sufficientto callforthe . opportuzlitytooffersupportingevidence.'). ThecourtwillgrantthemotionastoW esley'sj 1983claim thatM alloythreatenedtohave him chargedwith afelony drug crim e.AsW esley'ssubm issionsindicatethatno such chargewas . N filed,M alloy's alleged comm entwas nothing m ore than an empty threat. Allegations that an officerverballyharassed orthreatened theplaintiff,withoutmore,do notstateany constim tional claim. SeeHensleev.Lewis,153Fed.App'x 178,180 (4thCir.2005)(citingCollinsv.Cundy, 603 F.2d 825,827 (10th Cir.1979:;M onison v.M artin,755 F.Supp.683,687 (E.D.N.C.) CdW ords by themselvesdo not state a constitutionalclaim,withoutregard to theirnattlre.''l. M oreover,the nm ended complaintdoesnotsupporta reasonable inference thatM alloy'swords alonetriggeredthejailoffcials'allegeduseofexcessiveforceagainstW esley.Accordingly,the courtcannotfndthatW esley'sallegationsgiveriseto anyactionablej 1983claim relatedtohis dnlg felony threat,and therefore,willgrantthedefendant'sm otion asto thisclaim . H owever,thecourtm ustdenythem otion todismissasto W esley'sfailuretoprotectclaim . ç:(T)heDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentprotectsapretrialdetaineefrom theuse of excessive force thatam otmts to punishm ent,and is notan incidentof som e otherlegitimate govemmentalpurpose.''Duffv.Potter,665F.App'x242,244 (4th Cir.2016).Toprevailin an excesàiveforce claim ,apretrialdetaineem ustshow lithattheforcepum osely orknowingly used againsthim wasobjectively llnreasonable.'' Id. The courtmustmake this determination by consideringtheevidenceGf om theperspectiveofareasonableofficeronthescene,including what theofficerknew atthetim e,notwiththe20/20vision ofhindsight''Id. ti-l-he conceptofbystnnderliability isprem ised on a1aw oftk er'sduty to uphold the 1aw and protectthe public from illegalacts,regardless ofwho com mits them .'' Randallv.Prince George'sCotmtv.M D.,302F.3d 188,203(4th Cir.2002).Thus,ifan officerwitnessesanother offker'sl&illegalact''andGtpossessesthepowertopreventit,(butqchoosesnottoact,hemay be deemedanaccompliceandtreatedaccordingly.1d.(citingO'Nei11v.Krzeminski,839F.2d9,1112(2dCir.1988)(observingthatofficerwhostandsbyanddoesnotseektoassistvictim couldbe Gçtacitcollaborator'l). Taking W esley's allegations as true,the courtconcludes thatthey supportreasonable inferencesthathewasnotresistingorposingathreat;thatthejailofficials'intentionaluseofforce againsthim wasobjectivelyum easonableunderthe circumstances;thatM alloy wasconfronted with thejailox cials'wrongfulconduct;thathe had a reasonable opportllnity to intervene to preven 'tfurtherlmreasonable force;and thathe chosenotto actto protectW esley. Becausethe second nm ended complaintthus states aprim a facie claim ofbystanderliability againstW esley, thecourtwilldenythemotion to dism iss.An appropriate orderwillissuethisday.Theclerk will send acopy oftllismem orandllm opirlion and the accom panying orderto W esley and to cotmsel ofrecord forthedefendants. ENTER :This *9 #dayofApril,2019. SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
