# Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 10, 1987 · 812 F.2d 1425

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7852620

## Case

- **Full name:** James T. MARTIN, Jr. v. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Richard Xander, Appellants James T. MARTIN, Jr. v. D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Richard Xander
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 10, 1987
- **Citations:** 812 F.2d 1425; 259 U.S. App. D.C. 31
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Ginsburg, Starr
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and the District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 813 (1996).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7852620

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the plaintiff had produced no direct evidence of the defendants' unconstitutional motive

## Opinion text

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in Judge Ginsburg’s thoughtful opinion, including her reading of this court’s decision in Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084 , 105 S.Ct. 1843 , 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985). Contrary to the protestations of our dissenting colleague, the majority opinion is not unfaithful to the teachings of Hobson . The majority opinion merely instructs the district court to permit carefully circumscribed discovery focused precise *45 ly on the events of the November 29, 1982 meeting. Allowing such limited discovery in this context is fully consistent with our position in Hobson that plaintiffs who are unable to allege specific facts to support a claim of unconstitutional motive should not be permitted to involve government actors in “protracted” discovery and trial. 737 F.2d at 30 . It is also fully consistent with this court’s twin goals in Hobson : to limit the litigation burdens placed on government officials by “insubstantial” lawsuits, while preserving the opportunity for plaintiffs to vindicate constitutional rights. Id. at 29-31 . After sharply limited discovery, Martin will be required to allege nonconclusory evidence of unconstitutional intent; if he is unable to sustain this burden, the district court will be required to dismiss his claim, thereby precluding burdensome, protracted discovery and trial. Hobson , which emphasized the need to maintain some flexibility in this context, certainly does not require that we completely foreclose Martin from pursuing a potentially meritorious constitutional claim.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7852620. Public record. Not legal advice.