Quasimodo

Jun 29 2009, 07:35 AM

4.) New Item

Finally, the briefs contained one new, and potentially explosive, item.

In attempting to defend DPD Capt. Jeff Lamb, Kerner concedes (in perhaps the strongest manner yet from any representative of the City of Durham) that on March 24, 2006, Lamb did, in fact, inform Sgt. Mark Gottlieb that Nifong would be directing the police investigation.

Quote:

 

E. Jeff Lamb

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Jeff Lamb became Commander of Durham Police Department’s Patrol District Two on March 6, 2006, just days before the party. (2d Amend. Compl. ¶ 56.) Plaintiffs further allege that on March 24, 2006, he agreed to allow Nifong, the County’s elected District Attorney, to “take control” of the investigation, at Nifong’s request.

The Second Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations even implying that Lamb knew, or would have any reason to know, that his agreement to have Nifong direct the investigation could create a risk of constitutional injury. While Plaintiffs allege that “Nifong had determined that he would ride Mangum’s allegations into office,” (2d Amend. Compl. ¶ 488), there are no facts alleged to suggest that Lamb knew this intent or knew that Nifong would later engage in any inappropriate conduct. Nifong was the District Attorney appointed to serve by the Governor, and police officers are immune from liability for taking direction from a prosecutor. See Rhodes v. Smithers, 939 F. Supp. 1256, 1274 (S.D. W. Va. 1995), aff’d 91 F.3d 132 (4th Cir. 1996). Lamb is not vicariously liable for Nifong’s conduct or the conduct of his subordinates. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. Without more factual content, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a plausible claim against Lamb for his agreement to Nifong’s involvement in the investigation.