Keene v. YMCA

Full title: JILLIAN KEENE v. HAGERSTOWN YMCA, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, D. Maryland

Date published: Dec 10, 2004

Civil No. JFM-03-994 Exempt from ECF (D. Md. Dec. 10, 2004)

Opinion

Civil No. JFM-03-994 Exempt from ECF.

December 10, 2004

MEMORANDUM

J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge

Plaintiff has instituted this action against the YMCA of Hagerstown, the City of Hagerstown, and Charles Streightiff, a Hagerstown police officer.¹ Discovery has been completed, and defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff, who is now appearing pro se, ² has filed a memorandum in opposition to the YMCA's motion and has moved for leave to amend her complaint and add additional parties as to her claims against the City of Hagerstown and Officer Streightiff. Defendants' motions for summary judgment will be granted, and plaintiff's motions for leave to amend her complaint and to join additional parties will be denied.

1 Plaintiff also named as a defendant Howard Sollenberger, another Hagerstown police officer, but never effected service upon him. The record makes clear, however, that Officer Sollenberger would have been entitled to summary judgment if he had been served. Under these circumstances, I have concluded that it is in the interest both of justice and efficiency to dismiss the action as to Officer Sollenberger with prejudice because of a failure to prosecute.

2 Plaintiff's prior counsel, asserting that "the attorney-client relationship has been irretrievably broken" in this case and another case in which she was representing plaintiff, has withdrawn her appearance.

I.

Plaintiff's claims arise from an incident that occurred at the YMCA in Hagerstown on April 4, 2002. Plaintiff arrived at the YMCA that afternoon and found her daughter and a friend standing outside. The girls had been told to stay there after another member of the YMCA had complained about their conduct. Plaintiff entered the facility. Although there is a dispute about precisely what was said, there is no disagreement that plaintiff and Sharee O'Haver, the YMCA's membership director, had a verbal altercation. It is also undisputed that because plaintiff was declining to leave the YMCA, Ms. O'Haver felt compelled to call the police to request their assistance in persuading plaintiff to depart.

Officer Streightiff came to the scene, and Ms. O'Haver explained the situation to him. Shortly thereafter, Officer Howard Sollenberger arrived, and Officer Streightiff briefed him about what was occurring. There is no evidence that Ms. O'Haver or anyone else from the YMCA asked the officers to arrest plaintiff.

Officer Streightiff and Officer Sollenberger walked over to plaintiff and told her that she had to leave. Plaintiff declined to do so. The officers again instructed her that she would have to leave. Plaintiff reiterated she was not going to leave. She also said that the only way she was going to leave was if she were arrested. When, after she responded affirmatively to a final inquiry from Officer Sollenberger as to whether she was refusing to leave the facility, Officer Sollenberger told her she was under arrest, took two steps forward, and turned plaintiff around and handcuffed her.

Officer Sollenberger was the arresting officer, and he filed a charge against plaintiff for failure to obey. Officer Streightiff testified that if he had charged plaintiff, he would have charged her with trespassing. Plaintiff eventually was acquitted on the failure to obey charge but the trial judge stated he would have convicted plaintiff if she had been charged with trespassing.

II.

Against the background of these facts plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Maryland common law. None of her claims are viable.

Underlying some of the claims is plaintiff's allegation that she was racially discriminated against by the defendants. There is no objective evidence in the record to support the allegation. None of the defendants made any statements that reflected racial animus, and there is no other direct evidence of racial discrimination. Plaintiff (who is African-American) also has presented no evidence that a person of a different race was treated more favorably than she under similar circumstances. About direct proof of discriminatory intent, such evidence is necessary in order for plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. See generally McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).³

3 The City of Hagerstown is also entitled to summary judgment on the ground that is cannot be held vicariously liable for plaintiff's claims.

Another allegation underlying several of plaintiff's claims is that she was arrested without probable cause. To the extent that claims are asserted against the YMCA based upon this allegation, they fail because there is no evidence that Ms. O'Haver or any other representative of the YMCA directed the police officers that they arrest plaintiff. As to Officer Streightiff, the evidence establishes that it was Officer Sollenberger, not Officer Streightiff, who placed plaintiff in custody and filed the charge against her. Moreover, as to plaintiff's federal claim, both officers are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. See generally Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Although the trial judge in plaintiff's criminal case acquitted her on the technical ground that she should have been charged with trespassing instead of failure to obey, Officers Streightiff and Sollenberger could have reasonably concluded that plaintiff's refusal to leave the premises despite their insistence that she do so, provided a ground for charging her with failure to obey. Finally, both as to the federal claim and the state constitutional claim (as to which the defense of qualified immunity is not available), plaintiff's claim fails because in light of the trial judge's finding in the criminal case that plaintiff should and could have been charged with trespassing, she obviously can prove no damages. If the correct charge had been filed, she still would have been taken into custody and faced trial.

All of plaintiff's remaining common law claims fail as well. To hold the police officers liable, she would have to prove that they acted with malice, and the record is barren of any facts that would prove that they acted maliciously. See Md. Code, Cts. Jud. Proc. Art. § 5-507(b)(1) (2002 Repl. Vol.). Likewise, there is no evidence that the YMCA was negligent in any way in its training, retention or supervision of Ms. O'Haver, or that Ms. O'Haver or any other representative of the YMCA made any defamatory statements about her.

III.

In her motion for leave to amend complaint and to join necessary parties, plaintiff seeks to assert new claims based upon the fact that she and members of her family were arrested 22 times in a 15-month period, predating the August 4, 2002 incident at the YMCA. The arrests apparently arose from neighborhood disputes.

This court entered a scheduling order on July 11, 2003 in which various deadlines were set, including a deadline of August 25, 2003 for moving for joinder of additional parties and amendment of pleadings. Plaintiff was then represented by counsel and remained to be represented by counsel until early March 2004. She did not file her present motions until much later.

The time has long since passed for plaintiff to amend her complaint. If she wants to assert claims involving her prior arrests, she must file a new action.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 10th day of December 2004

ORDERED

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint is denied;

2. Plaintiff's motion to join necessary parties is granted;

3. The motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Hagerstown and Officer Charles Streightiff is granted;

4. The motion for summary judgment filed by the YMCA of Hagerstown is granted;

5. Judgment is entered in favor of the City of Hagerstown, Officer Charles Streightiff, and the YMCA of Hagerstown against plaintiff; and

6. This action is dismissed as to Officer Howard Sollenberger for failure to prosecute.