Meredith v. Prince George's County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

:

LIONEL MEREDITH1

:

v. : Civil Action No. DKC 19-3198

:

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, et al.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil

rights case is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants

Prince George’s County and Officer Tommy M. Thomas. (ECF No. 38).

The issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no

hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the

following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted

in part and denied in part.

I. Factual Background

On the morning of February 25, 2016, Plaintiff Lionel Meredith

walked to a Target store and bought a pair of Bluetooth headphones.

(ECF Nos. 38-4, at 23 (Thomas Depo.); 38-5, at 11-12 (Meredith

Depo.)).2 He charged the headphones in the store, paired them with

1 The complaint apparently misspelled Plaintiff’s last name

and, as a result, so does this court’s docket. The clerk will be

directed to correct the spelling.

2 Deposition citations are to the transcript page number,

rather than the ECF page number.

his phone, and left. (ECF No. 38-5, at 21, 25-26). On his way

out of the building, he made a phone call. (Id., at 26, 28). As

he walked across the parking lot talking on the phone, a police

SUV cruiser came up from behind and cut him off. (Id., at 20,

32). Unbeknownst to Mr. Meredith, Target personnel had told

Defendant Tommy M. Thomas, a Prince George’s County police officer,

that the man walking across the parking lot stole an employee’s

phone. (ECF Nos. 38-4, at 25-27; 38-5, at 21-22, 32, 34).

The parties dispute what happened after Officer Thomas

received that call. According to Mr. Meredith, Officer Thomas

never said anything to him, let alone shouted for him to stop, and

that he would have heard if Officer Thomas had. (ECF Nos. 40-3,

at 32-33 (Meredith Depo.); 38-5, at 34). Mr. Meredith only became

aware of Officer Thomas after the Officer pulled up in his car.

(ECF No. 38-5, at 34). Mr. Meredith immediately stopped walking

and stretched his arms out “to look as nonaggressive as possible.”

(Id., at 34, 43). Officer Thomas then emerged from his vehicle

with his gun drawn. (ECF No. 38-6 at 3 (Meredith Interrogatories);

see also 38-5, at 41). Officer Thomas then switched to his taser

and approached. (ECF No. 38-6, at 3). Officer Thomas put his

knee in Mr. Meredith’s back, handcuffed him, and yelled, “Where is

it? Where is the phone?” (Id.).

Officer Thomas maintains that he told Mr. Meredith to stop

multiple times but that Mr. Meredith continued walking even after

he pulled up in his vehicle. (ECF No. 38-4, at 27, 29, 31, 54-

55). After getting out, he again told Mr. Meredith to stop and

still Mr. Meredith continued on. (Id., at 31, 63). Officer Thomas

then pulled out his taser and pointed it at Mr. Meredith to get

him to stop. (Id., at 31-33, 36-37, 55, 59). He ordered Mr.

Meredith to the ground and handcuffed him. (Id., 65-66; 71-72).

Officer Thomas does not remember putting his knee in Mr. Meredith’s

back. (Id., at 71). Officer Thomas then frisked Mr. Meredith on

“officer safety” grounds. (Id., at 36). It is not clear whether

Officer Thomas suspected that Mr. Meredith had a weapon. (Compare

id., at 36; ECF No. 40-4, at 40-41 (Thomas Depo.), with ECF No.

38-4, at 86;). Officer Thomas apparently pats down everyone he

stops. (Id., at 45-46). He maintains that he did not “search”

Mr. Meredith for a cell phone. (See id., at 72).

After Mr. Meredith was detained, two other officers arrived

on the scene. (ECF No. 40-3, at 31). Officer Thomas drove off to

confirm the details of the stolen phone, leaving Mr. Meredith with

the other officers. (ECF Nos. 38-4, at 72; 38-5, at 35-36).

Target personnel told Officer Thomas that there had been a mistake,

the cell phone was never stolen in the first place. (ECF Nos. 38-

4, at 72-73, 92; 38-3, at 2 (Thomas Interrogatories)). Officer

Thomas returned, uncuffed Mr. Meredith, and allowed him to leave.

(ECF Nos. 38-4, at 74; 38-5, at 39-40). Officer Thomas estimates

that Mr. Meredith was handcuffed on the ground for two-to-three

minutes. (ECF No. 38-4, at 75-76). County documents may indicate

that the stop lasted thirty minutes. (See ECF No. 40-6, at 3 (Pub.

Safety Commc’ns Incident Details)). Mr. Meredith does not know

how much time passed. (ECF No. 38-5, at 40-41). Mr. Meredith

suffered lower back pain for about two months afterwards. (ECF

No. 40-3, at 30).

II. Procedural Background

On August 23, 2016, Mr. Meredith notified Prince George’s

County of his intent to sue. (ECF No. 40-1). He filed this

lawsuit in state circuit court on February 22, 2019, naming the

County, “Officer Thompson (John Doe #1),” and two other “John Does”

as Defendants. (ECF No. 3). Summonses were issued on that date

and again on May 31, 2019 but were not served. (ECF No. 1-3, at

2; see also ECF Nos. 1-8; 1-11 through 1-14). He amended his

complaint on August 16, (ECF No. 4), and served Prince George’s

County on October 10, (ECF No. 1-6). Officer Thomas testifies

that he first became aware of the suit that same month—October

2019—when notified by counsel. (ECF Nos. 38-4, at 85; 41-1, ¶ 3).

The County removed to this court on November 5 and answered shortly

thereafter. (ECF Nos. 1; 2; 7).

During discovery, Mr. Meredith identified Officer Thomas and

moved in May 2020 for leave to amend his complaint a second time

by substituting him for “Officer Thompson (John Doe #1)” and

removing the other “John Does.” (ECF No. 20, ¶¶ 4-7; see ECF No.

20-5). The County opposed, arguing that the statute of limitations

had run for claims against Officer Thomas. (ECF No. 21). After

a hearing, Judge Paula Xinis granted the motion to amend but

preserved Officer Thomas’ ability to raise his statute of

limitations defense at summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 27; 28).

Officer Thomas consented to service and answered. (ECF Nos. 33;

38-1, at 4). The second amended complaint presents two claims

against Officer Thomas for (1) false imprisonment or arrest under

Maryland law, and (2) Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure and

excessive use of force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a third claim

against the County for (3) failure to train, supervise, and

discipline under Section 1983. (ECF No. 28, at 4-6).

In March 2021, Defendants moved for summary judgment. (ECF

No. 38). Mr. Meredith responded, (ECF No. 40), and Defendants

replied, (ECF No. 41). In October, the case was reassigned to

this member of the bench.

III. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

A motion for summary judgment will be granted only if there

exists no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). “[S]ummary

judgement should be granted only when it is perfectly clear that

no issue of material fact exists.” Raynor v. Pugh, 817 F.3d 123,

129 n.2 (4th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). A material fact is

one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law[.]” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute about a material

fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. A court

must view the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom

“in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986) (quotation omitted), but “a party cannot create a

genuine dispute of material fact through mere speculation or

compilation of inferences,” Shin v. Shalala, 166 F.Supp.2d 373,

375 (D.Md. 2001).

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party

generally bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact. No genuine dispute of material

fact exists, however, if the nonmoving party fails to make a

sufficient showing on an essential element that he bore the burden

to prove. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–23. Therefore, on those issues

on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof, it is his

responsibility to confront the summary judgment motion with an

“affidavit or other evidentiary showing” demonstrating that there

is a genuine issue for trial. See Ross v. Early, 899 F.Supp.2d

415, 420 (D.Md. 2012), aff’d, 746 F.3d 546 (4th Cir. 2014).

B. Officer Thomas

Officer Thomas argues that he is entitled to judgment because

Plaintiff’s claims against him are barred by the statute of

limitations. (ECF No. 38-1, at 12-18). He also argues that the

evidence does not support finding that he falsely arrested Mr.

Meredith or violated his Fourth Amendment rights. (Id., at 18-

26). Last, he contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity

on Mr. Meredith’s Section 1983 claims. (Id., at 26-28).

1. Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations had run when Officer Thomas was

joined as a defendant. He asserts, and Mr. Meredith does not

dispute, that the state and federal causes of action accrued on

February 25, 2016. Maryland law establishes a three-year

limitations period for both the false imprisonment/arrest claim

and the Section 1983 claims. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387

(2007); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. The limitations

period therefore ran on Mr. Meredith’s claims on February 25, 2019.

Mr. Meredith filed suit against Prince George’s County and “Officer

Thompson (John Doe #1)” three days prior. The case was removed in

November 2019 and Mr. Meredith moved to add Officer Thomas in May

2020, more than a year after the limitations period had run.

Mr. Meredith can only proceed if his claims against Officer

Thomas “relate back.” This question is governed by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Meredith moved for leave to

amend after removal. See Taylor v. Bailey Tool Mfg. Co., 744 F.3d

944, 946-47 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that whether a plaintiff moves

to amend before or after removal determines the applicable relation

back rule); Pac. Emp’rs Ins. v. Sav-A-Lot, 291 F.3d 392, 399-401

(6th Cir. 2002) (same); Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d

606, 611 (4th Cir. 1980) (holding federal rules control for state

law claims). Relation back balances a defendant’s statute-of-

limitations interest in repose from suit against the general

preference for resolving disputes on their merits. Krupski v.

Costa Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 550 (2010); see also Goodman

v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 467-68 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C), an amendment that “changes

[a] party or the naming of [a] party” can relate back to an original

timely complaint and satisfy the limitations period if it meets

three requirements. First, the claim must involve the same

transaction or occurrence. Goodman, 494 F.3d at 467. Second, the

new party must have “notice of the action” “within the period

provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint”

and must have known or should have known that, “but for a mistake

in identity,” “the action would have been brought against him.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C); see Goodman, at 467, 469-71. Third, the

notice must have been such that the party “will not be prejudiced

in defending on the merits.” Id.

Officer Thomas does not dispute that the claims against him

involve the same transaction or occurrence as those asserted in

the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 41, at 12-13). He appears

to argue instead that Rule 15(c)(1)(C) does not apply in the first

instance, and, even if it does, that he did not have proper notice

of the action, should not have known Mr. Meredith would have sued

him but for a mistake, and was prejudiced by his late addition.

As discussed below, Mr. Meredith’s claims against Officer Thomas

relate back and are not barred by the statute of limitations.3

a) Applicability

Officer Thomas argues that “John Doe” defendants are not

parties under Maryland law and therefore “Officer Thompson

(John Doe #1)” was not a party when the case was removed to this

court. (ECF No. 38-1, at 12-13). Although not clearly stated, he

appears to contend that, as a result, Rule 15(c)(1)(C) does not

apply because Mr. Meredith’s amendment sought to add Officer Thomas

as a new party rather than “change” an existing party. Officer

Thomas is wrong, even assuming he correctly states Maryland law.

A “change” under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) does not require formal

substitution of one party for another. Goodman, 494 F.3d at 468-

69. Adding a party will do. Id.

3 This opinion does not address Rule 15(c)(1)(A) which permits

relation back where “the law that provides the applicable statute

of limitations allows[.]”

b) Notice

A newly named defendant must receive “‘notice of the action’

within the Rule 4(m) period[.]” Krupski, 560 U.S. at 554 n.5

(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(1)(C)). He must also “have expected

or should have expected . . . that [he] was meant to be named a

party in the first place[.]” Goodman, 494 F.3d at 471.

The period for service under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) is 90 days.

“Typically, ‘in removed cases, the Rule 4(m) time period starts to

run upon removal to the federal district court, not the date the

action was originated in state court.’” Thompson v. Dollar Tree

Stores, Inc., No. 17-cv-3727-PWG, 2019 WL 414881, at *3 (D.Md.

Feb. 1, 2019) (quoting 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1137 (4th ed. 2015)); see

Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(c)(1); UWM Student Ass’n v. Lovell, 888 F.3d 854,

858 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing Cardenas v. Chicago, 646 F.3d 1001,

1004 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1448.

The parties do not discuss, and no circuit precedent appears to

resolve, whether the same rule applies when calculating the start

of the 4(m) period for Rule 15(c)(1)(C) purposes. Two recent

decisions in this district demonstrate that it likely does. “Rule

15 does not distinguish between” original actions and removal

actions, Czach v. Int’l Hotels Grp. Res., LLC, No. 20-cv-0125-DLB,

2020 WL 6150961, at *8 (D.Md. Oct. 20, 2020), nor does “case law

or [an] advisory committee note provid[e] for an exception,”

Thompson, 2019 WL 414881, at *3.4

Based on that analysis, Officer Thomas received adequate

notice of the action. The case was removed to this court on

November 5, 2019. Officer Thomas must have had notice of it by

February 3, 2020. He testifies, and Mr. Meredith does not dispute,

that he first became aware of the suit on October 28, 2019, well

before the deadline. (ECF Nos. 38-4, at 85; 41-1, ¶ 3). (Notably,

Officer Thomas would not have had enough notice if Rule 4(m), as

applied under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), required looking to the date that

the original complaint was filed in state court.)

He also knew or should have known that Mr. Meredith intended

to name him as a defendant in the first place. This question turns

on “the type of notice or understanding that the new party had.”

Goodman, 494 F.3d at 470. It does not turn on the type of mistake

4 See also Hardy-roy v. Shanghai Kindly Enters. Dev. Grp. Co.,

No. 20-cv-0373-NYW, 2021 WL 229282, at *4 & n.6 (D.Co. Jan. 22,

2021); Lamendola v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, No. 18-cv-0163-KBM, 2019

WL 2371714, at *6 (D.N.M. June 5, 2019); Bondurant v. City of

Battleground, No. 15-cv-579-KLS, 2016 WL 5341966, at *5 (W.D.Wash.

Sept. 23, 2016); Lee v. City of Fayetteville, No. 15-cv-0638-FL,

2016 WL 1266597, at *8 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2016); Hoffman v. Daimler

Trucks N. Am., 940 F.Supp.2d 347, 363 n.15 (W.D.Va. Apr. 12, 2013);

Dietz v. McAdams-Norman Property, II, LLC, No. 12-cv-0509-JCT,

2013 WL 247651, at *3-4 (W.D.Va. Jan. 23, 2013); cf. Washington v.

Roundy’s Ill., LLC, No. 19-cv-3054, 2020 WL 374696, *6 & n.9

(D.N.D. Jan. 23, 2020) (declining to decide). But see Mendez v.

Jarden Corp., 503 F.App’x 930, 937 (11th Cir. 2013); Robinson v.

Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., No. 21-cv-4050, 2021 WL 5330401, at *8 n.99

(E.D.Pa. Nov. 16, 2021); Acosta-Felton v. Greinke, No. 11-cv-3103-

RDR, 2013 WL 615469, at *2 (D.Kan. Feb. 19, 2013).

made – relation back can apply as equally to “typographical

mistakes” as to “oversights or mistakes of inclusion or omission.”

Id., at 471.

Officer Thomas admits that he was made aware of an “intent to

sue [him]” in October 2019. (ECF No. 41-1, ¶ 5). Not only does

this admission seem fatal to his position, but Officer Thomas does

little to combat it because he mistakenly assumes that the 4(m)

period begins at the filing of the original state complaint. To

the extent, however, he suggests that Mr. Meredith filed a “John

Doe” complaint which made it impossible for him to recognize Mr.

Meredith’s intent to sue, he is wrong. First, Mr. Meredith’s use

of “Officer Thompson (John Doe #1)” is not the same as using “John

Doe” to stand in for an entirely unknown defendant. Unlike “John

Doe” alone, “Officer Thompson (John Doe #1)” includes identifying

information that narrows the group of possible defendants. It

provides a real name, and one similar to the name intended. The

inclusion of “John Doe” is a red herring. It acknowledges only

that the name given may be incorrect but does not assert that the

proper identity is entirely unknown.

Even if the complaint could be labeled a “John Doe” complaint,

Officer Thomas would still have had sufficient notice. While many

circuits bar relation back when a plaintiff moves to substitute a

new party for a “John Doe” defendant, the Fourth Circuit does not.

See Goodman, 494 F.3d at 469-73; Locklear v. Bergman & Beving AB,

457 F.3d 363, 367 (4th Cir. 2006) (describing out-of-circuit

practice). It has made clear that relation back turns on notice

and prejudice to the new party. Goodman, 494 F.3d at 469-71. In

most “John Doe” cases, that is enough to block relation back

because the new party could not have expected that he was meant to

be sued in the first place. Id., at 471.

This case, however, would be one of the few where the new

party should have realized he was an intended defendant. Not only

does Officer Thomas admit as much, but almost any information from

the first amended complaint would make that clear. It describes

in detail the incident in the Target parking lot. (See generally,

ECF No. 4). It also names “Officer Thompson (John Doe #1).” As

noted above, “Thompson” is close enough to “Thomas” to suggest, in

concert with the factual detail alleged, that Mr. Meredith merely

misremembered the relevant officer’s name. In addition, it was

always clear, as Judge Xinis noted at the October 13, 2020 Motions

Hearing, that Mr. Meredith intended to amend his complaint once

Officer Thomas had been identified to him. (See also ECF No. 11,

at 2 (describing Mr. Meredith’s December 2019 proposal to join all

defendants once identified by the County in initial disclosures)).

c) Prejudice

The timely notice Officer Thomas received also eliminated any

risk of prejudice to him. A new party is not prejudiced when “the

proceedings [have] not advanced to the point that he could show

any prejudice with regard to his presentation or preparation of

his defense.” Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 609 (4th Cir.

2010) (alterations and quotation omitted). Officer Thomas was

aware of the action at the outset, before the County had answered

or discovery had begun. Not only did he have time to prepare a

defense, but he could easily have coordinated with the County

because he shares the same attorney and the parties’ interests

overlap. In addition, Officer Thomas has fully participated in

this case since being added. Mr. Meredith moved for leave to amend

within the time required by the scheduling order. Only limited

discovery occurred before Officer Thomas was added. Once joined,

he answered, depositions were taken, and Defendants filed the

dispositive motion now before the court.

Mr. Meredith’s second amended complaint relates back and his

claims against Officer Thomas can proceed.

2. False Imprisonment/Arrest and Fourth Amendment

Unreasonable Seizure

Mr. Meredith’s false imprisonment/arrest claim and his Fourth

Amendment unreasonable seizure claim are assessed together because

the disputed legal requirements merge. The questions at issue

under both are: (1) what type of detention did Officer Thomas

effect, and (2) did he have enough reason to suspect Mr. Meredith

to justify a stop or arrest. Both Maryland law and the Fourth

Amendment are violated if Officer Thomas made an investigatory

stop, also known as a Terry stop, without a reasonable, articulable

suspicion of wrongdoing. Santos v. Frederick Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs,

725 F.3d 451, 460 (4th Cir. 2013); Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70,

119-20 (1995); see also Foster v. Balt. Police Dep’t, No. 1666,

2021 WL 3261217, at *9-10 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. July 30, 2021)

(unpublished). And they are violated if Officer Thomas made an

arrest without probable cause. Id. If an arrest did occur,

Officer Thomas specifically needed probable cause to believe Mr.

Meredith was stealing a phone in his presence because that is

likely misdemeanor theft, as Defendants suggest, (ECF No. 38-1, at

23). See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 (2003); Md. Code

Ann., Crim. Proc. § 2-202(b); id., Crim. Law § 7-104(g)(2).

Officer Thomas contends that he only stopped Mr. Meredith but

that he is entitled to judgment either way because he had

reasonable suspicion, and probable cause to believe, that Mr.

Meredith was committing theft in his presence. (ECF No. 38-1, at

20, 22-23). In response, Mr. Meredith fails to meet his burden to

point to facts that could support finding that Officer Thomas

detained him without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Indeed, he essentially abandons his false imprisonment/arrest and

unreasonable seizure claims altogether. Although his memorandum

includes two sections ostensibly devoted to unreasonable seizure,

Mr. Meredith makes no real attempt there or elsewhere to argue

anything other than excessive force. (See generally ECF No. 40,

at 18-26). At most, Mr. Meredith could be construed to suggest

that Officer Thomas lacked justification to frisk him. (See id.,

at 22-23). But those statements only introduce evidence of Officer

Thomas’ attitude toward frisking individuals as evidence of the

Officer’s disregard for the Fourth Amendment. In any case, the

operative complaint, (ECF No. 28), does not mention Mr. Meredith

being patted down or assert an unreasonable search claim.

Officer Thomas is entitled to judgment on Mr. Meredith’s false

imprisonment/arrest and unreasonable seizure claims. Accordingly,

summary judgment will be granted on Count I in full, and on a

portion of Count II.

3. Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

Excessive force claims are analyzed under “an

‘objective reasonableness’ standard,” looking to the totality of

the circumstances of each case. Yates v. Terry, 817 F.3d 877,

884-85 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395

(1989)). This requires balancing “the nature and quality of the

intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against

the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify

the intrusion.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8 (1985)

(quotation omitted). Whether an officer’s actions were reasonable

is determined “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the

scene” with the same “information possessed by the [defendant]

officer at the moment at the moment force is employed.” Graham,

490 U.S. at 396 (citation omitted); Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d

471, 477 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Relevant factors in

making this determination include (1) the severity of the crime,

(2) whether there is an immediate threat to the safety of the

officer or others, and (3) whether the subject is resisting his

detention or attempting to flee. Yates, 817 F.3d at 885 (citing

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).

Clear disputes of material fact preclude awarding judgment on

the merits of Mr. Meredith’s excessive force claim. As noted

above, it appears undisputed that Mr. Meredith was suspected of

misdemeanor theft, a relatively minor crime. But the parties

disagree about whether Officer Thomas told Mr. Meredith to stop

before drawing a weapon and, as a result, about whether Officer

Thomas could reasonably have perceived Mr. Meredith to be fleeing

or to be a threat. They also disagree about whether Officer Thomas

drew his gun or placed his knee in Mr. Meredith’s back. Taken in

the light most favorable to Mr. Meredith, a jury could find that

Officer Thomas pointed his gun and taser, without warning, at a

man suspected of a minor, non-violent offense who was not running

away or threatening anyone (as Officer Thomas may admit). Then,

after he’d stopped walking, made every effort to demonstrate he

wasn’t a threat, and complied with commands to get on the ground,

the Officer dug his knee into the man’s back with enough force to

leave him in pain for two months and handcuffed him. The jury

could conclude that was disproportionate and unreasonable. See,

e.g., Turmon v. Jordan, 405 F.3d 202, 207-08 (4th Cir. 2005); Young

v. Prince George’s Cnty., 355 F.3d 751, 757-58 (4th Cir. 2004);

Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167, 174 (4th Cir. 1994).

4. Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section

1983 claims that “protects government officials from liability

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan ,

555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quotation omitted). The two elements

of the defense are whether a constitutional violation

occurred and, if so, whether the right in question was

clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 739, 385 (4th Cir. 2013). Mr.

Meredith has carried his burden to point to sufficient facts

for a reasonable jury to conclude that his right to be free

from excessive force was violated. Officer Thomas “bear[s]

the burden of showing that the violation was not clearly

established[.]” Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 295, at 302 n.5

(4th Cir. 2021).

“To be clearly established, a legal principle must be

settled law, which means it is dictated by controlling

authority or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive

authority.” Feminist Majority Found. v. Hurley, 911 F.3d

674, 704 (4th Cir. 2018). Although the principle must be

particularized, Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 779

(2014), “a court need not have previously found the specific

conduct at issue to have violated an individual’s rights,”

Feminist Majority, 911 F.3d at 704.

Officer Thomas fails to meet his burden. In his initial

motion, he points to a single case about firing a taser. (ECF

No. 38-1, at 27). Only on reply does Officer Thomas acknowledge

that Mr. Meredith introduced facts tending to show that he pointed

his gun at Mr. Meredith and dug his knee into Mr. Meredith’s back

after ordering him onto the ground. Officer Thomas points to no

cases dealing with either of those facts, or the use of handcuffs,

does not argue that there is an absence of such cases, and does

not explain how the legal doctrine in the case it cites fails to

reach those facts. (ECF No 41, at 17). That is not enough.

The case Officer Thomas points to isn’t even enough to support

his taser argument and, if anything, undercuts it. There, the

Fourth Circuit held that its precedent “makes clear that a

nonviolent misdemeanant who is compliant, is not actively

resisting arrest, and poses no threat to the safety of the officer

or others should not be subjected to ‘unnecessary, gratuitous, and

disproportionate force.’” Yates, 817 F.3d at 888 (quoting Meyers

v. Baltimore Cnty., 713 F.3d 723, 735 (4th Cir. 2013)).

At bottom, Officer Thomas’ argument also fails because he

premises it on his version of events and does not attempt to argue

that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the facts most

favorable to Mr. Meredith. A claim of qualified immunity cannot

be resolved in favor of a defendant where it hinges on disputes of

material fact. Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 177 (4th Cir.

2018) (quotation omitted).

Officer Thomas is not entitled to judgment on Mr. Meredith’s

excessive force claim because it is not time barred, there are

genuine disputes of material fact, and he is not immune from suit.

Accordingly, summary judgment will be denied as to a portion of

Count II.

C. Prince George’s County

A local municipality can be liable for an employee’s conduct

under Section 1983 if: (1) it had an unconstitutional policy or

custom; and (2) the unconstitutional policy or custom caused a

violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Monell v.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The only question

left at issue is whether the County had an unconstitutional custom

of using excessive force. Mr. Meredith has pointed to sufficient

evidence that excessive force was used against him (but not that

he was falsely imprisoned or arrested), as discussed above, and

the County does not challenge causation.5

For a plaintiff to show that a local custom existed, “(1) the

municipality must have actual or constructive knowledge of the

custom and usage by its responsible policymakers, and (2) there

must be a failure by those policymakers, as a matter of specific

intent or deliberate indifference, to correct or terminate the

improper custom and usage.” Randall v. Prince George’s Cnty., 302

F.3d 188, 210 (4th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).

In Section 1983 police misconduct suits, municipal liability

typically arises in two forms: (1) when “programs of police

training and supervision [] are claimed to have resulted in

constitutional violations by untrained or mis-trained police

officers”, and (2) when an “municipal policymakers [fail] to put

a stop to or correct a widespread pattern of unconstitutional

conduct by police officers of which the specific violation is

simply an example.” Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1389 (4th

Cir. 1987). Mr. Meredith appears to allege both. (See ECF No. 28,

at 6). In opposition, however, he argues only that the County

condoned widespread use of excessive force. (ECF No. 40, at 28-

5 The County also argues for dismissal for failure to state a

claim. (ECF No. 38-1, at 28-32). The County’s motion is treated

as one for summary judgment because it was styled that way, (ECF

No. 38), and both sides have proffered evidence after discovery.

33). The County is therefore entitled to judgment on any failure-

to-train theory.

To prove that the County condoned excessive force, Mr.

Meredith must show: (1) a “persistent and widespread practice[ ]

of municipal officials,” (2) that policymakers knew about, and

(3) failed to correct due to their “deliberate indifference.”

Spell, 824 F.2d at 1386, 1391 (alterations omitted); see also Owens

v. Balt. City State’s Att’ys Off., 767 F.3d 379, 402-03 (4th Cir.

2014). The duration, frequency, and extent of employees’

misconduct can support finding that policymakers had actual or

constructive knowledge and that their failure to stop the conduct

constituted deliberate indifference. Spell, 824 F.2d at 1387,

1391. Deliberate indifference is, however, “a stringent standard

of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a

known or obvious consequence of his action.” Connick v. Thompson,

563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011). “Sporadic or isolated violations” are not

enough to put municipal policymakers on notice that inaction on

their part will cause future violations; “only ‘widespread or

flagrant’ violations will.” Owens, 767 F.3d at 403 (quoting Spell,

824 F.2d at 1387). In other words, liability will not “be inferred

merely from municipal inaction in the face of isolated

constitutional deprivations by municipal employees.” Milligan v.

City of Newport News, 743 F.2d 227, 230 (4th Cir. 1984).

Mr. Meredith fails to show a widespread pattern of excessive

force by Prince George’s County police officers. The only evidence

he points to are newspaper reports of five excessive-force lawsuits

filed against Price George’s County officers between 2010 and 2016,

(ECF No. 40-7), and the settlement of a prior excessive force claim

against Officer Thomas, (ECF No. 40-4, at 7-9). Of the five

lawsuits, three were filed after the events at issue in this case.

(ECF No. 40-7, at 1, 7, 10). Another was filed six days before

the events and did not settle until 2018. (Id., at 5; Goines v.

Prince George’s Cnty., No. 16-cv-0463-RWT, ECF No. 32, Settlement

Order (D.Md. Feb. 1, 2018). Subsequent or unresolved lawsuits

cannot create notice of unconstitutional behavior. See Amann v.

Prince George’s Cnty., No. 99-cv-3759-DKC, 2001 WL 706031, at *2

(D.Md. June 15, 2001). That leaves Mr. Meredith with only one

excessive force verdict against the County and the settled

complaint against Officer Thomas.6 That is not enough, even

assuming the newspaper article is admissible and a violation

occurred in the settled case. See Connick, 563 U.S. at 62 (holding

four violations over ten years were insufficient); Nicholson v.

Balt. Police Dep’t, No. 20-cv-3146-DKC, 2021 WL 1541667, at *9

(D.Md. Apr. 20, 2021).

6 In Morales v. Prince George’s County, an officer “used

excessive force” when he struck the plaintiff “while working as a

security guard at a 2010 University of Maryland fraternity

party[.]” (ECF No. 40-7, at 3).

Mr. Meredith’s other arguments do not bring him any closer to

showing that the County was deliberately indifferent to the

widespread use of excessive force. It is not enough that the

County’s corporate representative is aware that members of the

public have objected to the use of force by County officers, (ECF

Nos. 40, at 32; 40-5, at 20 (Alerte Depo.)), or that Officer Thomas

may believe that he can frisk any person that he stops. (ECF

No. 40, at 29-30). Nor is it enough to assert baldly that a

“boatload of evidence” warned the County that it had an excessive

force problem. (Id., at 29). None of these arguments demonstrate

that the use of excessive force was widespread and persistent

within the department before February 2016.

Prince George’s County is entitled to judgment because there

are not enough facts to show that it condoned excessive force and,

as a result, it cannot be held liable for Officer Thomas’ conduct.

Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted as to Count III.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment will be granted in part and denied in part. A separate

order will follow.

/s/

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW

United States District Judge