Nichoel Hill v. Jason Hunt ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1645 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1645
NICHOEL HILL, Individually, and as mother and next friend of her minor child,
child doe; WILLIAM HILL, Individually, and as father and next friend of his minor
child, child doe,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DETECTIVE JASON HUNT, #5112; BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND;
BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; STATE OF MARYLAND;
CHASITY TECOLA RANDALL; KATHRYN A. CAWTHON; PARKVILLE
NAZARENE CHRISTIAN DAYCARE, INC.; BRIANNA CARULLO,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; BALTIMORE
COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES; MARYLAND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES;
MICHELLE CHUDOW,
Defendants.
No. 22-1701
NICHOEL HILL, Individually, and as mother and next friend of her minor child,
child doe; WILLIAM HILL, Individually, and as father and next friend of his minor
child, child doe
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1645 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 6
v.
DETECTIVE JASON HUNT, #5112; BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND;
BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; STATE OF MARYLAND;
CHASITY TECOLA RANDALL; KATHRYN A. CAWTHON; PARKVILLE
NAZARENE CHRISTIAN DAYCARE, INC.; BRIANNA CARULLO,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; BALTIMORE
COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER; MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES; MARYLAND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES;
MICHELLE CHUDOW,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20−cv−03746−CCB)
Submitted: February 9, 2023 Decided: July 13, 2023
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: David C.M. Ledyard, LEDYARD LAW LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Elise Kurlander, Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees States of Maryland, Chasity Randall, and Kathryn A. Cawthon.
Bradley J. Neitzel, Assistant County Attorney, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF
LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees Baltimore County, Baltimore County Police
Department, and Detective Jason Hunt. Stephen S. McCloskey, Matthew J. McCloskey,
SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Parkville Nazarene
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1645 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2023 Pg: 3 of 6
Christian Daycare.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1645 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2023 Pg: 4 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Nichoel and William Hill, individually and as next friend of their minor child, filed
this suit against various individual, county, and state defendants, alleging violations of their
federal constitutional, state constitutional, and state law rights in relation to the 2018 arrest
of Nichoel Hill (Ms. Hill). The Hills appeal the district court’s order granting motions to
dismiss filed by the Baltimore County Police Department (BCPD), BCPD Detective Jason
Hunt, Baltimore County, Maryland, the State of Maryland, Baltimore County Department
of Social Services (DSS) Investigator Chasity Randall, DSS supervisor Kathryn Cawthon,
Parkville Nazarene Christian Daycare, Inc. (Parkville Daycare), and former Parkville
Daycare employee Brianna Carullo. The Hills also appeal the district court’s order denying
their motion to file a second amended complaint, denying their motion to reconsider, and
denying their request to remand their state law claims to the Baltimore County Circuit
Court. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions to
dismiss, Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc., 48 F.4th 257, 268 (4th Cir. 2022),
“accept[ing] as true all well-pleaded facts in [the] complaint and constru[ing] them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff,” Lucero v. Early, 873 F.3d 466, 469 (4th Cir. 2017)
(citation omitted). We employ this same standard when, as here, the district court denies
a motion to file a second amended complaint on the grounds that such amendments would
be futile. U.S. ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, 756 F.3d 268, 274 (4th Cir. 2014).
Reconsideration, on the other hand, “is an ‘extraordinary remedy,’ to be used
‘sparingly,’ available on only three grounds: 1) an intervening change in controlling law;
4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1645 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2023 Pg: 5 of 6
2) previously unavailable evidence; or 3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” JTH Tax, Inc. v. Aime, 984 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
We review the district court’s denial of the Hills’ motion for reconsideration for abuse of
discretion. U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 866 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2017).
We also review for abuse of discretion the district court’s exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction. PEM Entities LLC v. Franklin County, 57 F.4th 178, 181 (4th Cir. 2023). “A
district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary manner, when it fails to
consider judicially-recognized factors limiting its discretion, or when it relies on erroneous
factual or legal premises.” Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 220 (4th Cir. 2022) (citation
omitted).
Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the
district court’s: (1) determination that probable cause existed to arrest Ms. Hill, (2)
dismissal of the Hills’ negligence and gross negligence claims, (3) determination that the
Hills’ proposed amendments would have been futile, (4) determination that the court did
not commit a “clear error of law” or a “manifest injustice” when it considered a document
attached to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, JTH Tax, 984 F.3d at 290, and (5) exercise
of supplemental jurisdiction over the Hills’ related state law claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders granting the defendants’ motions
to dismiss, denying the Hills’ motion to file a second amended complaint, denying the
Hills’ motion for reconsideration, and denying the Hills’ request to remand their previously
dismissed state law claims. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1645 Doc: 34 Filed: 07/13/2023 Pg: 6 of 6
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6