MICHAEL JOHNSON, JR. v. TYRONE S. FRANCIS, et al.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Fader, November 28, 2018,
Discovery – An individual can’t seek information about the Baltimore Police Department’s assets where a judgment was made against an individual officer and no enforcement action was taken against BPD directly.
Facts:
In 2010, Michael Johnson filed suit against Baltimore Police Department officers for: violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, false imprisonment, battery, and assault “based on the officers’ actions in taking him from Baltimore in a police van, assaulting him, breaking his phone, and then dropping him off in Howard County, in the rain, without shoes, socks or a way home.”
After a jury trial, Johnson was awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $465,000 and $35,000 in punitive damages.
The trial judge reduced the award to apx. $300,000. The officers appealed.
In a 2014 opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reduced the award further and sent the case back to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further action.
Before this was entered, Johnson tried to garnish property belonging to the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, but The Court of Special Appeals held that this was inappropriate since the Baltimore Police Department is not an agency of the City of Baltimore for purposes of the Local Government Tort Claim Act.
Despite being directed by the Court of Special Appeals to file an enforcement action against BPD if it failed to pay him, and possibly without ever having obtained judgment against the officers at all, Johnson decided to file interrogatories and subpoenas on BPD attempting to discover the department’s assets.
BPD moved to quash these and that request was granted, since BPD wasn’t part of the lawsuit and Johnson was seeking information about BPD, not the individual officers.
Johnson appealed, arguing that he was entitled to this information.
Held: The Court held that Johnson can’t file interrogatories against BPD because it’s not a party to the suit and it can’t file subpoenas on BPD that aren’t calculated to enforce a judgment against the individual officers. It also noted that Johnson can’t seek anything until he gets a judgment entered for him.
LGTCA- The Local Government Tort Claim Act (LGTCA) limits liability, provides for indemnification, and established requirements to sue officials and employees of local governments.
LGTCA- Under the LGTCA, Baltimore Police Department and Baltimore City are separate “local governments.” The reason for this is that BPD is actually a state agency, having been created by State law.
LGTCA- The Baltimore Police Department is responsible directly for suits against its officers related to actions taken within the scope of their employment
LGTCA- The LGTCA generally places a cap (maximum amount that can be awarded) on damages for the local government, “where, as here, a police officer is found to have acted with actual malice, he is not shielded by immunity and is liable fully for all damages awarded.”
Personal Liability – An officer is “fully liable for all damages awarded in an action in which it is found that the employee acted with actual malice.”
Enforcement – An enforcement action against BPD allows a judicial determination of whether or not BPD is required to pay the judgment for an officer’s actions.
From the Case: “Mr. Johnson argues that the officers were acting within the scope of their employment; the Department disagrees. It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish its right to collect from the Department, either through an enforcement action or some other permissible mechanism. If Mr.
Johnson were to pursue such an action successfully and obtain a money judgment against the Department that was not promptly paid, then he would” be entitled to the discovery that he is seeking. “At present, the only money judgment he has obtained is against the three officers” and therefore he is not presently entitled to information about BPD’s assets.