Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Evans v. Durham; no emotional distress
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 08:37 PM (579 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 


Count 15: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Conspiracy, asserted
against the City and against Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, Addison,
Hodge, Clark, Meehan, DSI, in their individual capacities


(snip)

In the present case, Plaintiffs contend that they “have suffered and continue to suffer
from emotional and mental conditions generally recognized and diagnosed by trained
professionals.” However, a “label and conclusion” or “naked assertion” will not suffice under
the pleading standards set out in Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868
(2009). Plaintiffs have failed to include any factual allegations as to each Plaintiff’s emotional
or mental disorders, condition, or diagnosis, in order to support the contention that each of
them suffered from severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs also failed to sufficiently allege a link
between any emotional or mental disorder or condition and the specific misconduct alleged in
this claim.


Therefore, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as to Count 15 will be granted, and
Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress will be dismissed on this basis.




Plaintiffs contend that they “have suffered and continue to suffer
from emotional and mental conditions generally recognized and diagnosed by trained
professionals.”


isn't that sufficient--to claim this? Doesn't this have to be accepted as true at this stage
of the proceedings?

Does he want--at this stage--fulsome details and medical reports?
Didn't the judge complain about the length of the complaint?

I guess they didn't suffer any emotional distress...
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 31 2011, 08:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nyesq83
Member Avatar

I wonder if this could be successfully appealed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

I have had a chance to do a quick read of Judge Beaty’s opinion in the Evans et al v. Durham et al case, and here are some highlights of the judge’s opinions.

First, he takes very seriously the charges that the NTIO and indictments were falsely obtained, violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure (photographing and taking samples from the entire team was the “search” and the arrests of Evans, Finnery and Seligmann was the “seizure.”

Quote:
 
At this stage in the case, the Court simply concludes that where officers deliberately or recklessly supply false or misleading evidence to support a grand jury indictment as alleged in the present case, or deliberately omit material information knowing that it would negate probable cause, the officers may be liable under § 1983 for violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, if their actions result in the seizure of an individual without probable cause. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment rights in this case.


Second, Judge Beaty acknowledges the distinction between Nifong’s role as a prosecutor, for which he has absolute immunity, and other role involving investigating the case with Durham Police and Linwood Wilson under his supervision. This clearly breaches Nifong’s immunity defense.

Quote:
 
Specifically, Plaintiffs have alleged that Nifong took over the investigation in this matter before any suspects had been identified, and then proceeded, with his nvestigator, Wilson, and with the assistance of the Gottlieb and Himan and the DSI Defendants, to create false and misleading evidence inculpating Plaintiffs. Based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, Nifong was acting far outside his
prosecutorial role and was instead assuming an investigatory role in this matter, going so far as to assume supervision of an investigation that had just begun. Cf. id. at 273, 113 S. Ct. 2616 (noting that absolute immunity does not apply “[w]hen a prosecutor performs the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer,” including “searching for the clues and corroboration that might give him probable cause”). Therefore, the Court concludes that the claims against Nifong and Wilson for their investigatory acts, including the alleged preparation of false and misleading evidence during the course of the investigation, would not be barred by Prosecutorial Immunity. Thus, Nifong and Wilson are liable for their investigatory
acts to the same extent as other investigating officials.

Third, Judge Beaty finds claims that Durham targeted Duke students to be plausible.

Quote:
 
Specifically, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have alleged that the City had a policy of targeting Duke students that led to multiple constitutional violations against Duke students, particularly by Gottlieb, and that the City through its final policymaking officials nevertheless continued the policy and ratified and condoned those violations. Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that this condoning of constitutional violations in the enforcement of the policy led to the constitutional violations and injuries.
In addition to the policy of targeting Duke students and ratification of Gottlieb’s constitutional violations and assignment of Gottlieb to the investigation, Plaintiffs allege that Durham had a policy of publishing premature official conclusions of guilt. However, the Court does not reach the issue of whether these allegations are sufficient to state a Monell claim based on this policy, since the Court has already determined that Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient policy to support a Monell claim at this stage in the case, as discussed above.

Fourth, Judge Beaty finds reason to believe that that the police and DNASI actions contributed to malicious prosecution because of what was in effect a conspiracy.

Quote:
 
Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, Clark, and Meehan nevertheless contend that they cannot be liable for malicious prosecution for providing information to the prosecutor. However, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, Clark, and Meehan did not just give honest information and assistance to Defendant Nifong. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that these Defendants created false and misleading evidence, conspired with Nifong to initiate the prosecution, and affirmatively participated in efforts to initiate and maintain that prosecution,
such that the criminal prosecution would not have existed except for the efforts of these Defendants. Similarly with respect to Defendant Addison, Plaintiffs allege that Addison made false and inflammatory public statements in his role as official Durham Police spokesperson, acting in concert with the other Durham Police Defendants, intending to inflame the jury pool, compromise the fairness of the criminal proceedings, and otherwise procure the prosecution of Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court finds that the allegations are sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the claim for malicious prosecution as to Addison. As a result, the Court concludes that the allegations are sufficient to satisfy the first prong as to Defendants Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Clark, and Addison.

Fifth, Judge Beaty discusses the obstruction of justice charges against a number of the defendants.

Quote:
 
In the present case, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, Clark, Meehan, and DSI obstructed justice by manufacturing false and misleading evidence and intimidating witnesses in a manner that impaired the judicial process. Although not separately repeated in Count 14, Plaintiffs have also alleged throughout the Second Amended Complaint that these Defendants were motivated by malice, spite, ill-will and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights in order to overcome any public official immunity that might otherwise apply. In addition, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that these actions were taken by Defendants Nifong and Wilson in an investigatory capacity, such that absolute prosecutorial immunity would not apply, at least as to those investigatory activities. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a claim for obstruction of justice against Defendants Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb, Himan, Clark, and Meehan, although the Court notes again that it will be Plaintiffs’ burden to present evidence in support of this claim as to each individual Defendants.

Sixth, Judge Beaty throws out claims for infliction of emotional distress.

Quote:
 
As noted above, in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs do not include any specific allegations of emotional or mental disorders or severe and disabling emotional or mental conditions suffered by any of the Plaintiffs, and the Second Amended Complaint does not include any specific identification of any particular Plaintiff’s mental or emotional condition or the nature of their emotional distress. It is not sufficient to state summarily that all Plaintiffs suffered “severe emotional distress.” As noted above, Plaintiffs have failed to detail the specifics of each Plaintiff’s emotional or mental disorders, condition, or diagnosis
.

Judge Beaty concludes his opinion with stinging words which, I believe, convey his own sense of outrage at what happened.

Quote:
 
The Court is also compelled to note that the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint that are going forward, particularly as to Counts 1-3, set out allegations of significant abuses of government power. Indeed, the intentional use of false or misleading evidence before a grand jury to obtain an indictment and arrest without probable cause is exactly the type of “unreasonable” search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against, and would violate the most fundamental concepts of due process. In this regard, it has been noted that “‘if any concept is fundamental to our American system of justice, it is that those charged with upholding the law are prohibited from deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit (indeed, we are unsure what due process entails if not protection against deliberate framing under color of official sanction).’” Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 285 (Shedd, J., concurring) (quoting Limone v. Condon,372 F.3d 39, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2004)). In addition, “the Supreme Court has long held that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment if, in order to obtain a warrant, he deliberately or ‘with reckless disregard for the truth’ makes material false statements or omits material facts. . . . No reasonable police officer . . . could believe that the Fourth Amendment permitted such conduct.” Miller v. Prince George’s County, 475 F.3d 621, 631-32 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Thus, there can be no question that the Constitution is violated when government officials deliberately fabricate evidence and use that evidence against a citizen, in this case by allegedly presenting the false evidence to a grand jury in order to obtain an indictment of individuals that the officials know are innocent. The Court acknowledges the “‘embarrassing diversity of judicial opinion’ over the composition or even existence, of a claim for ‘malicious prosecution’ founded in § 1983.” Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 2000). However, Defendants in this case essentially contend that this Court should take the most restrictive view of the applicable doctrines and should conclude that no provision of the Constitution has been violated, and that no redressable claim can be stated, when government officials intentionally fabricate evidence to frame innocent citizens, even if the evidence is used to indict and arrest those citizens without probable cause. This Court cannot take such a restrictive view of the protections afforded by the Constitution. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated a potential violation of their constitutional rights in this case. This case will therefore proceed to discovery on the claims as set out above, and it will ultimately be Plaintiffs’ burden to present proof in support of these claims.
Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 11:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Where is that tip of the hat emoticon for sceptical's work yesterday and today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

Payback
Apr 1 2011, 09:43 AM
Where is that tip of the hat emoticon for sceptical's work yesterday and today?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Kerri P.
Apr 1 2011, 09:50 AM
Payback
Apr 1 2011, 09:43 AM
Where is that tip of the hat emoticon for sceptical's work yesterday and today?
Posted Image
:toast:

To sceptical!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

:toast: To the families, their friends, the lawyers, and those at Liestoppers and others who believed from the beginning - but above all to the players who would not be cowed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q.A.
Member Avatar
Q.A.
TO SCEPTICAL!!!
:toast: :toast: :toast:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genny6348
Genny6348
Joan Foster
Apr 1 2011, 09:59 AM
Kerri P.
Apr 1 2011, 09:50 AM
Payback
Apr 1 2011, 09:43 AM
Where is that tip of the hat emoticon for sceptical's work yesterday and today?
Posted Image
:toast:

To sceptical!
YES!! :crh: :crh: :crh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply