McCain v. District of Columbia

Court: District Court, District of Columbia
Date filed: 2014-10-06
Citations: 70 F. Supp. 3d 525, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141734, 2014 WL 4978661
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


KIMBERLY MCCAIN,

               Plaintiff,

       v.                                               Civil Action No. 13-1589 (GK)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

              Defendants.


                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff Kimberly McCain                      ("Plaintiff" or "McCain")                  brings

this    action against            the     District       of    Columbia       ("the       District")

and Metropolitan Police Department                           ("MPD")    Officers Kelvin King

("Officer        King")           and       Richard           Moats       ("Officer             Moats")

(collectively,        "Defendants")              for    negligence,          gross       negligence,

negligent       supervision,              intentional           infliction          of     emotional

distress,      and violations             of her        constitutional         rights       pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

       This matter          is    before        the    Court    on     Defendants'        Motion      to

Dismiss       [Dkt.   No.         4].       Upon       consideration          of     the        Motion,

Plaintiff's Opposition [Dkt. No.                       7],    Defendants'      Reply [Dkt. No.

8] '    Plaintiff's          Supplemental               Opposition           [Dkt.        No.      10] '

Defendants'      Response          to     the    Supplemental          Opposition         [ Dkt.    No.

11], Defendants' Notice to the Court dated August 14, 2014                                         [Dkt.

No.    14],    and    the        entire    record       herein,        and    for    the        reasons
stated below,         Defendants'   Motion     shall       be granted in part and

denied in part.

I.     BACKGROUND

       A.        Factual Background1

       On July 12, 2009,       Plaintiff was arrested in the District of

Columbia     for     drunk driving.      Amended Complaint            ("Am.      Compl. ")

~~ 8-9. 2    After failing a series of field sobriety tests, she was

taken to "a police substation" where she was twice administered

a    breath alcohol      test using a        machine       known as   an   Intoxilyzer

5000EN      ("Intoxilyzer").           Id.     ~~     8-10.       The      results      of

Plaintiff's        Intoxilyzer tests were           0.34   and 0.37 grams per 210

liters      of     breath,   respectively,      indicating        that     her     breath



1
  The facts are taken from the Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 1-2],
documents incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint,
and facts of which the Court may take judicial notice.    See Abhe
& Svoboda,  Inc. v. Chao, 508 F.3d 1052, 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
("In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the court
may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents
attached thereto or incorporated therein, and matters of which
it   may  take   judicial  notice.")   ( citation omitted) . ·  In
particular, the Court takes judicial notice of the docket in
Plaintiff's criminal case, District of Columbia v. McCain, No.
2009 CTF 016013 (D.C. Super. Ct. July 23, 2009) ("McCain Crim.
Dkt.").   See Rogers v. District of Columbia, 880 F. Supp. 2d
163, 166 (D. D.C. 2012) (" [D]ocket sheets are public records of
which the Court can take judicial notice[.]") (citing Mangiafico
v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006)).   A copy of the
McCain criminal docket is attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants'
August 14, 2014, Notice [Dkt. No. 14].
2
  The Amended Complaint erroneously states that Plaintiff was
arrested on December 7, 2008, but the parties agree that she was
actually arrested on July 12, 2009.  See Pl.'s Opp'n at 1.


                                         -2-
alcohol level was more than four times the legal limit.                                                     Id.