Arnold v. City of Olathe
Decision Date | 10 September 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 18-2703-CM-JPO |
Citation | 413 F.Supp.3d 1087 |
Parties | Mark ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OLATHE, KANSAS, et al., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Andrew S. LeRoy, Jose M. Bautista, Bautista LeRoy, LLC, Kansas City, MO, Linda C. Powers, Pro Hac Vice, Groves Powers, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
Michael K. Seck, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, Alex Scott Gilmore, Kirk Thomas Ridgway, Ferree, Bunn, Rundberg, & Ridgway, Chartered, Overland Park, KS, for Defendant.
This case arises out of the tragic shooting death of Ciara Howard. Ms. Howard, who suffered from mental health and addiction problems, had walked away from a residential center. Because she was required to report to the center as a condition of her probation, an arrest warrant was issued. When Olathe police officers and Johnson County deputies arrived at Ms. Howard's boyfriend's home to serve the warrant, Ms. Howard refused to leave the house. Eventually, the officers entered the house and shot and killed Ms. Howard. The Special Administrator of Ms. Howard's Estate, Mark Arnold, filed this action, bringing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claims and state law tort claims for assault/battery and survival/wrongful death against the officers, deputies, and their employers. Both groups of defendants—those associated with the Olathe police department (the "Olathe defendants") and those associated with the Johnson County Sheriff's Office (the "Johnson County defendants")—filed motions to dismiss. (Docs. 37 & 47.) Plaintiff initially sought discovery before responding to the motions, but the court denied that request and ordered plaintiff to respond. The motions are now ripe and the court is ready to rule.
The following facts are taken from plaintiff's complaint. Defendants have also submitted some evidence that they claim is referenced in and central to the complaint. See Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C. , 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) ( ). Some of that evidence may be considered (i.e., the Notice of Claim). Some of it may not (i.e., the affidavits that contradict the allegations in the complaint). In any event, the court has discretion whether to consider such evidence. Lowe v. Town of Fairland, Okla. , 143 F.3d 1378, 1381 (10th Cir. 1998). As necessary throughout this opinion, the court will identify pieces of evidence that it has or has not considered, in accord with governing standards.
With these standards in mind, the court now turns to the facts of the case—viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The most succinct way to explain the facts is through the following chart of actors/defendants and timeline:
?
Despite the varying levels of involvement identified above, plaintiff's theory is that the collective actions of all the officers, deputies, and supervisors led to Ms. Howard's death. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants knew that Ms. Howard was mentally ill and in crisis. According to plaintiff, even those defendants who were not physically in the house during the shooting are responsible because they collectively raised the level of confrontation from a non-lethal one to a lethal one. They used Ms. Howard's boyfriend as a negotiator when they should have used a trained negotiator or mental health expert. And they did not attempt to stop Sergeant Sweany's unsafe entry of the house. Plaintiff claims that the following series of events led to "officer-created jeopardy," when there were other options that would not have resulted in Ms. Howard's death.
Both groups of defendants—the Olathe defendants and the Johnson County defendants—ask for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court will grant a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only when the factual allegations fail to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although the factual allegations need not be detailed, the claims must set forth entitlement to relief "through more than labels, conclusions and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig. , 534 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1216 (D. Kan. 2008). The allegations must contain facts sufficient to state a claim that is plausible, rather than merely conceivable. Id. "All well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be taken as true." Swanson v. Bixler , 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 1984) ; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The court construes any reasonable inferences from these facts in favor of the plaintiff. Tal v. Hogan , 453 F.3d 1244, 1252 (10th Cir. 2006).
The Olathe defendants labeled their motion as one alternatively for dismissal or for judgment on the pleadings. These defendants filed an answer before filing their motion. Technically, it is impermissible under the Federal Rules to submit an answer and thereafter file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) ( ). But Rule 12(h)(2) permits the court to consider "[a] defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" within a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Swearingen v. Honeywell, Inc. , 189 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1193 (D. Kan. 2002). The distinction between the two rules is purely one of procedural formality and the court employs the same standard that it uses to analyze a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to evaluate a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. Id. (citing Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr. , 222 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2000) ).
Because many of the issues overlap, the court takes up both motions to dismiss together....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rahim v. United States, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-11152-IT
..."unreasonable police conduct prior to the use of force that foreseeably created the need to use it." Arnold v. City of Olathe, Kansas, 413 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1106 (D. Kan. 2019).In sum, where Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on whose testimony Defendants r......
-
Bledsoe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Jefferson
...against Sedgwick County" and "equivalent to an action against the Board of County Commissioners"), with Arnold v. City of Olathe, Kan. , 413 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1110 (D. Kan. 2019) (dismissing (i) official capacity claims against city's police chief because they duplicated the claim against t......
-
Baker v. Hayden
...the county government and, thus, a municipality or as an arm of the State for purposes of Monell claims. See Arnold v. City of Olathe , 413 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1109 (D. Kan. 2019) (recognizing division of authority and finding county sheriff to be agent of State entitled to immunity under Ele......
-
Johnston v. Prairie View, Inc.
...that would have made a reasonable official realize that his actions would violate Plaintiff's rights. See Arnold v. City of Olathe, Kan., 413 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1107 (D. Kan. 2019). The immunities acknowledged above apply to the individual capacity claims against Defendant Lane in both Count......