Chronister v. Butts Cnty.

• Decision Date: 02 May 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-150 (MTT)
• Citation: Chronister v. Butts Cnty., CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-150 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. May 02, 2016)
• Parties: ANGELA CHRONISTER, Plaintiff, v. BUTTS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia

ANGELA CHRONISTER, Plaintiff, v. BUTTS COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-150 (MTT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

May 2, 2016

ORDER

Defendants Butts County, Butts County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Gary Long, Deputy Trevor Jones, Sergeant Linton Reeves, Sergeant William Cooley, Sergeant Chris Manos, Officer Mohamed Zock, Officer Marlin Moultrie, and Investigator Patricia Kennedy have moved to dismiss Plaintiff Angela Chronister's claims against them. (Doc. 39). The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Angela Chronister alleges that on January 8, 2013, Defendant Dennis Mitchel Finley, Chronister's brother, falsely reported to the Butts County Sheriff's Office that he suspected Chronister was abusing their mother, Virginia Finley. (Doc. 1 ¶ 20). On January 10, 2013, Ramona Finley, Defendants Ruth Finley, Investigator Kennedy, Officer Zock, and Sergeant Manos entered the home of Chronister and Virginia Finley "without the permission or consent of either resident." (Id. ¶ 22). Chronister alleges that the "Defendants found no evidence of abuse to Virginia Finley, and Virginia ... askedthem to leave." (Id.). As the officers were leaving, Chronister arrived at her house. (Id. ¶ 23). Zock allegedly told her that "her son" had let them in to conduct an investigation. (Id.). However, Chronister alleges that she was never "shown a warrant for an Officer to enter ... or search her home" and that "[n]o owner or resident gave Defendants permission to enter the home." (Id. ¶ 24). She also "observed that the front door lock and dead bolt were both damaged." (Id. ¶ 23 ). Chronister then called the police department and was told a complaint regarding "abuse" had been made. (Id.).

On January 11, 2013, Ramona Finley and Defendants Manos, Jones, and Jane Doe, who was another officer from the Sheriff's Office, entered Chronister's home. (Id. ¶ 25). Chronister alleges that her son-in-law asked the Defendants to produce a warrant, but instead, they "told him to step aside[] and entered the house." (Id.). The Defendants brought an ambulance and tried to persuade Virginia Finley to go to the hospital. (Id. ¶ 26). She refused and informed them she had seen a physician. (Id.).

That same day, Kennedy allegedly testified falsely in an affidavit for an arrest warrant that Chronister "deprived her 87 year old, demented, wheelchair bound mother, Virginia Finley, of proper supervision, a working communications device for emergencies, necessary wheelchair accessible entry/exits, adequate mobility, and sanitary housing conditions, which threatened victim's physical safety and health." (Id. ¶ 31). According to Chronister, Kennedy had spoken with Virginia Finley's doctor, was aware she was mentally able, and knew she did not require 24-hour supervision. (Id. ¶ 32). Chronister also alleges that Long, Jones, Reeves, Cooley, Manos, Zock, and Moultrie "wrongful[ly] procur[ed]" an arrest warrant against Chronister "based onpatently false allegations." (Id. ¶ 65). Chronister does not allege how these Defendants procured a warrant, what allegations were made, or why they were patently false.

Moultrie, Cooley, and Reeves executed the arrest warrant at Chronister's workplace on January 11. (Id. ¶ 33). One officer "seized [her] bag and searched it without consent or a warrant." (Id. ¶ 34). The officer found money in the bag and "loudly exclaimed, 'think we have a drug dealer here!'" (Id. ¶ 35). As the officers shackled her hands and feet, she asked to be cuffed in front of her body because she had a bad shoulder. (Id. ¶ 36). In reply, "[t]he officers told her to 'shut up' and cuffed her behind her back." (Id.). This allegedly caused her "great pain," and the officers "handled her roughly and caused severe bruising on her arms." (Id.). Chronister also asked the officers to loosen the cuffs because of a previous hand surgery, but they allegedly told her that they did not care. (Id.).

Chronister was then taken to Butts County jail and charged pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-5-100 for "Cruelty to persons age 65 or older" and O.C.G.A. § 16-13-75 for "Drugs not in original container." (Id. ¶¶ 37-38, 43). On February 14, 2013, a magistrate judge issued an "Order Setting Conditions for Pretrial Release," and Chronister was able to post her bond that day. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 47).

On March 5, 2013, Virginia Finley gave a statement, claiming that Chronister "was not her offender"; that "her abusers" were Dennis Mitchel, Ramona, Keith, and Ruth Finley; and that she wanted all of the charges against Chronister dropped. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41). She stated her doctor had informed the police she did not have mental problems. (Id. ¶ 42). On May 1, 2013, the charges against Chronister were dropped. (Id. ¶ 48). Chronister alleges that "[o]n and after January 10, 2011 [2013?], theDefendants were aware that there was no substance to the allegations and that the allegations were false, yet they continued to deprive ... Chronister of her civil rights and refused to dismiss the charges." (Id. ¶ 45).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

To avoid dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "At the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not 'show[n]'—'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). "[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). The complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where there are dispositive issues of law, a court may dismiss a claim regardless of the alleged facts. Marshall Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993).

B. Qualified Immunity Standard

"Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Sherrod v. Johnson, 667 F.3d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). "'Once discretionary authority is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity should not apply.'" Edwards v. Shanley, 666 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lewis v. City of W. Palm Beach, 561 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009)). To meet this burden, a plaintiff must establish that "the officer's conduct amounted to a constitutional violation" and "the right violated was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." City of W. Palm Beach, 561 F.3d at 1291. This two-step analysis may be done in whatever order is deemed most appropriate for the case. Id. (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009)).

The clearly established law² must provide a defendant with "fair warning" that her conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739-41 (2002). A plaintiff "can demonstrate that the contours of the right were clearly established in several ways." Terrell v. Smith, 668 F.3d 1244, 1255 (11th Cir. 2012). First, a plaintiff can show that "a materially similar case has already been decided." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Second, a plaintiff can point to a "broader, clearly established principle [that] should control the novel facts [of the]situation." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Finally, the conduct involved in the case may 'so obviously violate[ ] th[e] constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.'" Id. (citation omitted). "[E]xact factual identity with a previously decided case is not required, but the unlawfulness of the conduct must be apparent from pre-existing law." Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999, 1013 (11th Cir. 2011).

C. Analysis

All moving Defendants argue that the federal and state-law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and unconstitutional search of Chronister's residence and purse; the federal claim for excessive force; and the state-law claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the statute of limitations. They also argue that the state-law claims listed above, as well as those for malicious prosecution and damage to personal property, are barred by official immunity. Defendants Sheriff Long, Jones, Reeves, Cooley, Manos, Zock, and Moultrie argue Chronister's federal claim for malicious prosecution, which they do not contend is barred by the statute of limitations, should be dismissed because Chronister failed to allege they had a role in procuring charges. Butts County argues that the state-law claims for negligent hiring, retention, and training and supervision against it are barred by sovereign immunity and that it is not liable for any federal claim for the same. Sheriff Long argues that the state-law claims against him for negligent hiring, retention, and training and supervision are barred by official immunity and that he is entitled to qualified immunity on any federal claim premised on the same conduct.³

1. Butts County Sheriff's Office

As an initial...