UNITED STATES DIS'I`RICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLAUDIA PATRICIA )
CRUZ-ROLDAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 16-cv-1308 (RJL)
)
GREG NAGURKA, '
§ FILED
Defendant. § MAR 31 2017
C|ork. U.S. Dlstrlct & Bankruptcy
MEMORANDUM OPINION Courts for the D|strlctof Co|umb|a
(March 'S;, 2017) [Dkrs. #9, #12]
Plaintiff, Claudia Patricia Cruz-Roldan (“plaintiff” or “Cruz-Roldan”), a childcare
provider at a local day care facility, Was the subject of a criminal investigation into child
abuse. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“the Government”)
charged her in Superior Court With second degree cruelty to children and simple assault,
but ended up voluntarily dismissing the cases. CruZ-Roldan maintains her innocence and
claims the investigation and criminal cases vvent too far. She brings this action against
Greg Nagurka (“defendant” or “Nagurka”), Who Was the lead detective on the case for the
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. She alleges several tort claims, brought under D.C.
law (Counts I-V and VII), as Well as several constitutional violations, brought under § 1983
(Count VI). Am. Compl. [Dkt. #5]. Nagurka moves for partial dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon Which relief can be
granted. Def.’s Mot. for Partial Dismissal of the Am. Compl. (“Def" s Mot.”) l [Dkt. #9].
Specifically, Nagurka moves to dismiss Cruz-Roldan’s tort and § 1983 claims that rely on
the prosecution (Count V and part of Count VI), her tort and § 1983 claims based on false
arrest (Count IV and the other part of Count VI), and her slander claim (Count VII),
Nagurka argues that the Complaint fails to allege the required elements for an injury
sustained as part of a criminal prosecution or for a prima facie case of slander. He next
argues that Cruz-Roldan has not alleged sufficient facts to sustain her false arrest claims.
For the reasons described herein, Nagurka’s motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED
with respect to the claims that rely on the prosecution (Count V and part of Count VI). The
motion is DENIED, however, with respect to the slander claim (Count VII) and the false
arrest claims (Count IV and the remaining part of Count VI).
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Nagurka’s investigation into an incident of alleged child
abuse involving J.S., a young boy enrolled at Kiddie Academy, the D.C. daycare center
where plaintiff CruZ-Roldan worked. Am. Compl. 1 4. On May 18, 2015, bruises were
discovered on J.S.’s legs, arm, and back. Id. In conducting the investigation, Nagurka
obtained Kiddie Academy video footage from that day showing CruZ-Roldan patting a
crying J.S. on the back until he stopped crying. Id. Nagurka sent a two minute clip of that
video to a specialist at the Freddie Mac Foundation Child & Adolescent Protection Center,
who responded that “while [plaintiff] is patting [J.S.] quite vigorously, l don’t think this
clip shows enough to explain [J.S.’s] injuries.” Ia’.
Next, Nagurl