UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
ALEHEGN MEHARI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v ) Civil Case No. 16-1889 (RJL)
)
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET )
ALr )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
st
ORAND ON
. (March !,2020) [## 44, 451
Plaintiff Alehegn Mehari ("Mehari" or "plaintiff') brought this action alleging that
defendant Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") officers Candice Wilkes ("Wilkes,,),
Nico Alfredo Scott ("Scott"), Blake Edward Johnson ("Johnson"), and Bryan Francis
Christian ("Christian"), as well as the District of Columbia itself, conspired to violate his
constitutional rights, as well as committing several torts against him. Specifically, he
alleged various violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendrnent rights,
negligent supervision, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Aftel I granted in
part and denied in part defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal or Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, see Mem. Op, [Dkt. #21], the remaining parties (Mehari and the
officers) proceeded to discovery as to the remaining clairns: Fifth Amendment
1
substantive due process (Count I) and Fourth Arnendment false arrest (Count II).r This
matter is now before the Court on the parties' cross motions for surnmary judgrnent [Dkt
## 44,45]. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, defendants' motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff s rnotion is DENIED. The case
against Wilkes as to false arrest, however, willproceed. All other claims against Wilkes
and all other defendants are dismissed.2
BACKGROUND
Before explaining my reasons for granting defendants summary judgrnent in part
and denying it in part, a little background is necessary. Please note, however, that I am
only including those facts that are material to deciding this motion.3
After midnight on a Friday in late Septernber 2015, Wilkes was posing as a
prostitute at a Shell gas station on New York Avenue in Northeast Washington, D.C. as
part of an undercover sting operation. ,See Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ("Defb.'
I After my prior ruling,
Mehari filed an amended complaint naming Wilkes and re-
alleging some of the same claims I previously dismissed. See Am. Compl. [Dkt. #251.
As such, I sua sponte disrnissed with prejudice claims that previously had been
disnrissed. ,See Minute Order of Oct. 16,2017. Mehari's claim of an equal protection
violation against the officer defendants survived my earlier ruling, but he does not
address this claim at summary judgment, so I consider it abandoned and grant summary
judgment in favor of the defendants as to equal protection.
2
This includes any claims previously dismissed against the other officer defendants that
were not previously dismissed against Wilkes because she was not named as a defendant
until Mehari's amended complaint.
3
Where facts are disputed, I must draw all justifiable inferences in the plaintiff s favor,
see Andersonv. Liberty Lobby, lnc.,477 11.5.242,255 (1986), except where his version
of events is "blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe
tt," Scott v. Harris,550 U.S. 372,380 (2007).
2
SOMF") lDkt. #44-11 ll 1.4 Johnson and Scott were also involved with the operation,
tasked respectively with surveilling Wilkes's interaction with suspects and arresting any
targets identified by Wilkes . Id. fln 24. Christian was supervising the operation from
afar and was responsible for approving any arrest paperwork prepared by the arresting
officer. Id.I4.
Mehari arrived at the gas station in his taxicab at 2 aln. and pulled up to one of the
pumps on the station's west side. Id, n 6. He immediately exited his taxicab and entered
the gas station's store. Id n7 After he entered the store, Wilkes walked around the side
of the gas station's store towards the purnps on the station's west side. Id n B.
Meanwhile, Merhari purchased a lottery ticket, exited the store, and returned to his
taxicab. Id,[n7-9. As he approached his taxicab, Mehari looked at Wilkes.s td.1O.
Wilkes then walked past the driver's side of the taxicab, around the front of it, and past
4
Although plaintiff filed his own statement of rnaterial facts, he did not file an opposition
to defendants' statement. Under local rules, he thereby admitted the truth of those
allegations . See LCvR 7(h)(1) ("In determining a motion for summary judgment, the
Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its statement of material
facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues
filed in opposition to the motion."). This local rule tracks the federal rule. ,See Fed. R.
Civ. P.56(e)(2) ("If aparty... failstoproperly address anotherparty's assertion of fact
as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for purposes of
the motion."). Unless one of defendant's facts is squarely disputed by one the assertions
in plaintiff s own statement of material facts (or wholly unsupported by the record),
therefore, I consider it undisputed for purposes of this motion. When, as here, I have
relied on such an undisputed fact, I will cite solely to defendant's statement of material
facts.
5
Defendants say that Meharioostared" at Wilkes. Defs.' SOMF fl 9. To the extent there
is a difference between looking and staring, I conclude based on a review of the video
that Mehari looked at Wilkes,
a
J
the passenger's side before returning to the driver's side. Id. at fllJ 1 0-12, While Wilkes
was walking around Mehari's taxicab, he started the car and lowered the driver's side
window. ld.1,1 1. Wilkes stopped walking several feet from Mehari's window and put
away the cell phone on which she had been talking. Id.fl 13. She and Mehari began
speaking. Id. n rc. Seconds later, Mehari's taxicab started moving forward but then
stopped. Id, n 14. Seconds after that, the same thing happened again. Id. n 15. The two
continued speaking, and, less than two minutes later, Mehari's taxicab moved forward
and then stopped a third time. Id.lTfl 16-17. The two spoke for another minute, and
Wilkes extended a hand above the taxicab and pointed roughly towards the west. See id.
flfl 18-19. Mehari then drove off towards the south, and Wilkes signaled for him to be
arrested. See id. fl 20; Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 6 ("Ex. 6"), Camera Ir 2:06:30-36,
Camera 14 2:06:36-50..6 Police intercepted his taxicab just as it was leaving the gas
station and arrested Mehari. Defs.' SOMF fl 21.
All told, the cameras at the gas station captured video images only showing
Mehari and Wilkes speaking for around two and half rninutes. See id..]n 16, 18, 19-20;
Ex. 6, Camera 11 2:03:58-06:32. In a subsequent police report, Wilkes recounted their
conversation as follows :
Mehari: You're so pretty
Wilkes: Thanks, you looking for a date
Mehari: I'm just looking
Wilkes: Oh are you sure? You don't want any head or fuck
6
The defendant provided the Court with video footage frorn the gas station . See Ex. 6.
The gas station's recording system includes nine different cameras, so I refer to both a
camera and a timecode when citing this footage directly. The cameras had no audio
recording capacity.
4
Mehari: I don't know what you are saying.
Wilkes: Do you want me to suck your dick or fuck you?
Mehari: Oh, lhaveawife.
Wilkes: So you're going to tell her that I sucked your dick
Mehari: Yes
Wilkes: I didn't know you were married aren't wearing a ring
Mehari: I don't need a ring my love is here (puts hand to heart)
Wilkes: Oh, o. It's $30.00 for me to suck your dick
Mehari: ok
Wilkes: So, you got my $30.00
Mehari: Yes
Wilkes: ok
Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. #44]Ex.7 ("Police Report") at I-2. Mehari's account of
the conversation, frorn his deposition testimony (through a translator), somewhat agrees
with the police report, although it clearly demonstrates that Mehari, for whom English is
nothis first language, did not understand much of what wilkes was saying:
A She was the one that started speaking. I don't remember. Yeah, she
was the one that started speaking first.
a And was she speaking in English?
A Yes.
a What did - after she said something to you, what did you say to her?
A Initially, I told her I don't understand what - you know, what she said.
a And you told her that in English?
A Yes. I said I don't understand
a And what did she say in response to that?
A So that's when she said do you want a date and I still didn't understand
what that was, so I said, o'What's that" - you know, "What's that?"
So then that's when she said, o'Do you want sex" and then she said
"date" again. That's when I told her, "No. I'm not interested. I am
married."
a. when you told this woman that you were married, what did she say
then in response?
A. And so after I said that, I was about to leave. Then she looked at my
hand and she said that o'I don't see a ring on your finger."
a. And what, if anything, did you say in response to that?
A. When she said, I - my response was - I told her that I don't have a
ring because the ring is in my heart.
5
a. And did she then say anything in response to that?
A. Well, she didn't really give me a response to that but she kept on
talking and I kept on saying what is that, I didn't understand.
a. Okay. And so do you recall- after the comment about your ring being
in your heart, do you recall anything else specific either being said by
you or by her?
A. She kept on asking do you want dick and she kept on saying that over
over again, and I kept on asking her what is that, and she kept on
saying do you want dick.
a. The report suggests that you said to this - the woman who came to
your vehicle, ooYou're so pretty." Do you reball saying that?
A. I don't - I did not say that. I don't remember saying that.
a. Okay. The report indicates that you said, "I'm just looking." Did you
say that to the woman?
A. I don't remember that.
a So you indicate that ygu don't remember but my question is, did you
say it?
A. I did not say that.
a. The report indicates that the wolnan said to you, "Oh, are you sure
you don't want any head or fuck?" Did she say that to you?
A. Well, yes, she asked something like that, you know, a question
something like that, and that's when I told heroono, I'm married."
a. Okay. All right. Skipping ahead here that the report indicates that the
woman said to you, oolt's $30.00 for me to suck your dick." Did she
say that to you?
A. Yes, she did. I do - I did hear her say $30.00. I - yeah, she said that.
A. So she was saying that, you know, $30.00 and would you suck, it's
$30.00, you know, would I suck and she was saying a lot of things.
a. Okay. The report indicates in response to that offer frorn a wolnan
about $30.00 to suck your dick, you said, 'oOkay." Did you say that?
A. No. I was not saying okay to agree with her. I was - I wanted to leave
and I said, okay, okay, and I was leaving.
a The report indicates that the woman said to you, o'So you got my
$30.00?" Did she say that to you?
A. I remember her saying, you know, something about $30.00 but I
didn't say anything, you know, to her about that.
a. Okay. So in response to the question or the staternent, "So you got
my $30.00," the report indicates that you said, 'oYes." Did you say
that?
A. I did not say that. I don't remember
6
Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 8 ("Mehari Dep.") at27-37.
Although mentioned nowhere in her contemporaneous statement recounted in the
police report (nor, for that matter, anywhere in the text of the defendants' motion for
summary judgmentT), Wilkes explains in a declaration filed with the defendants' motion
for summary judgment that her pointing over the taxicab may have been done in order to
arrange a meeting with Meharr at anearby hotel:
While I do not specifically recall what I said to Plaintiff at [the] rnornent [l
pointed in the general direction of the west], it has been my practice in
undercover prostitution operations to tell individuals who are soliciting rne
that ( 1) I have reserved a room at the hotel located at 16 15 New York Avenue
NE; and (2) they should meet me at the hotel.
Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 2 ("Wilkes Decl.") fllT6-7.
Scott arrested Mehari and cornpleted the arrest report. ,See Defs.' Mot. for Summ,
J. Ex. 4 ("Scott Interrog. Resp.") flfl 6-7; Arrest Report at 1. Mehari was held in custody
for several hours after his arrest. See Def. Wilkes's Answer to Pl.'s Am. Compl.
("Wilkes's Answer") [Dkt. #41] 1T46. Scott and Johnson signed a Gerstein affidavit in
support of Mehari being charged.8 See Defs,' Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 1 ("wilkes's
Interrog. Resp.") fl 21. Thereafter, he had to appear in court on at least four occasions.
,See Defs. Scott, Johnson, and Christian's Answer to Am. Compl. ("other Defs.'
?
This declaration is mentioned for the first time in defendants' later opposition to
plaintiff s motion for summary judgment,
8
Despite repeated references to this Gerstein affidavit in Mehari's complaint, his motion
for summary judgment, and the interrogatories he propounded, there is no copy of this
affidavit in the record, nor was the Court able to access the copy ostensibly available on
the Superior Court's online case records system. As such, I do not know the contents of
this affidavit and cannot rely on those contents in deciding this motion.
7
Answer") lDl