Baltimore seeks dismissal of outstanding claim in wrongful conviction suit

Listen to this article

A wrongfully convicted man who already obtained a $15 million verdict against a Baltimore Police Department detective will continue litigating a claim of constitutional violations against the department after a federal appeals court dismissed an appeal of the verdict because the entire case has not concluded.

Sabein Burgess was convicted in 1995 of killing his girlfriend, Michelle Dyson. He was sentenced to life plus 20 years in prison but was released in 2015 after being exonerated. A federal jury in 2017 awarded Burgess $15 million and found Detective Gerald Goldstein, now retired, liable for the amount.

The court had previously bifurcated proceedings against Goldstein and the department, which was accused of having a policy or practice that caused Goldstein to violate Burgess’ constitutional rights, referred to as a Monell claim, by withholding exculpatory information and fabricating a police report. Discovery on the issue was stayed and the claims against Goldstein went to trial.

Goldstein appealed the verdict to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in January. On April 2, the three-judge panel dismissed the appeal because of the remaining unresolved count against the department. The judges held the decision from the trial court was not final and therefore they lacked jurisdiction.

The department filed a motion to dismiss the remaining count Tuesday, arguing Burgess was unable to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there is no further monetary or equitable relief he can receive.

Attorneys for the department contend they attempted to persuade the trial court that the case was not yet ripe for appeal after the verdict because of the pending claim, but the plaintiffs refused to consent to dismissal of the remaining count and the court took no action.

“BPD now reiterates its request that the Court dismiss the Monell claim,” the motion states.

The city has agreed to indemnify Goldstein for whatever judgment and fees are ultimately awarded, according to the motion, and Burgess “cannot collect twice for the same injury.”

“Burgess has been granted all the monetary relief that he can possibly be granted in this matter, whether he ultimately receives that monetary award or not,” the motion states.

Burgess disputed this in briefs filed with the 4th Circuit.

The department also argues there is no specific injunctive relief requested and any that could be ordered would be unnecessary because of current reforms being undertaken.

“Any conceivable reform or change to BPD policy that Burgess might hope to achieve via the equitable power of this Court is either irrelevant, due to the passage of time, or redundant, due to the reform already underway as part of the consent decree,” the motion states.

The only practical effect of the remaining count, according to the department, is it prevents the verdict from being appealed. In the meantime, the 4th Circuit noted the judgment was accruing interest at a rate of approximately $645 per day.

There is a disagreement among the state’s U.S. District Court judges as to whether the department can be liable for a Monell claim, according to the motion, which urges the court to adopt Judge Ellen L. Hollander’s recent opinions finding it cannot be.

Jon Loevy, lead counsel for Burgess, said Wednesday that attorneys “look forward” to proving a Monell claim against the department.

“We anticipate the court will order a new round of discovery and we’re going to prove the Baltimore Police had a policy and practice of violating people’s rights,” said Loevy, of Loevy & Loevy in Chicago.

Burgess’ response to the motion to dismiss is due April 29.

Baltimore City Solicitor Andre M. Davis did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The case is Sabein Burgess v. Baltimore Police Department et al., 1:15-cv-00834-RDB.