This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
15
outrageous conduct) (internal citation omitted). N otably,
Plaintiff‘s own version of events fails to detail any offensive ,
abusive, or outrageous conduct or statements made b y officers,
and instead states with minimal detail that Plainti ff was
quickly arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a polic e car. 9
Compl. ¶ 11. Although Plaintiff states that Office r Briggs
ignored her pleas to remove or loosen her handcuffs , she offers
no details or aggravating facts that suggest that t he use of
tight handcuffs during the course of her arrest cou ld reasonably
be viewed as ―atrocious‖ or ―going beyond all possi ble bounds of
decency.‖10 Furthermore, even though Briggs‘ brief squarely
attacks Plaintiff‘s failure to allege any ou trageous conduct,
Plaintiff fails to defend the sufficiency of such c ount and
fails to cite a single case suggesting that the con duct set
forth in the Complaint rises to the level necessary to even
approach the ―extreme and outrageous‖ standard appl icable to the
Virginia tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.11
9 Plaintiff‘s C omplaint is devoid of facts indicating that any
officer threatened her, used inappropriate language , struck her,
embarrassed her, bore her any ill will, or had any other reason
to intentionally target Plaintiff for mistreatment.
10 Furthermore, as to Gayle, Plaintiff fails to alleg e that Gayle
handcuffed her or was present when she repeatedly c omplained of
her handcuffs being too tight.
11 Plaintiff‘s briefs in opposition to dismissal argue that
applicable law permits a successful plaintiff in a § 1983 action
to recover for emotional distress. This argument, however,
misses the mark regarding the dismissal motions. B riggs and the
City Defendants challenge plaintiff‘s failure to adequat ely Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)