Donahue v. St. Joseph County
Decision Date | 21 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 50A03-9905-CV-203.,50A03-9905-CV-203. |
Citation | 720 N.E.2d 1236 |
Parties | John Neil DONAHUE, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Indiana, Appellee-Defendant. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Frank C. Capozza, Indianapolis, Indiana, William L. Wilson, Hahn, Walz & Knepp, South Bend, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
A. Howard Williams, Lynn M. Butcher, South Bend, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
John Neil Donahue appeals from the dismissal of his action against St. Joseph County. He presents several issues for our review which we consolidate and restate as whether Donahue failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). We affirm.
On November 13, 1993, Donahue, a resident of Massachusetts, attended a Notre Dame football game in South Bend. Following the game, he was arrested at the Linebacker Lounge and charged with public intoxication. He was transported to the St. Joseph County jail and placed in the custody of the St. Joseph County Police Department.
During the booking process, Donahue became argumentative and belligerent toward the officers processing his arrest. Two officers attempted to subdue him and threw him to the ground. As a result, Donahue alleges that he sustained a fractured jaw and lacerations to his face and head.
When Donahue returned home, he contacted a Massachusetts lawyer. On December 27, 1993, the lawyer sent a certified letter to Chief Ronald Marcinak of the South Bend Police Department and Sheriff Joseph Nagy of the St. Joseph County Police Department. That letter stated:
Very truly yours S/S Joseph D. Regan
In 1995, Neil filed a federal lawsuit against the police officers and the St. Joseph County Police Department. He filed an excessive force claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and a supplemental state law battery claim. In February of 1998, the United States District Court entered summary judgment for the defendant on the Section 1983 claim and relinquished jurisdiction over the pendant state law claim.
The trial court held a hearing on the Police Department's motion to dismiss. During the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the caption of Donahue's complaint to designate and substitute "St. Joseph County, by the Board of Commissioners of St. Joseph County, Indiana" as the named defendant. The parties filed a written stipulation of their agreement. The trial court took the motion under advisement and subsequently dismissed Donahue's amended complaint. Donahue now appeals.
It is well settled that a complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, unless it appears to a certainty on the face of the complaint that the complaining party is not entitled to any relief.2 McQueen v. Fayette County Sch. Corp., 711 N.E.2d 62, 65 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the trial court is required to view the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and with every intendment in his favor. Id. The court may only look to the complaint, and well-pleaded material must be taken as admitted. Id.
Under notice pleading, a plaintiff need only plead the operative facts involved in the litigation. Id. The plaintiff is required to provide a "clear and concise statement that will put the defendants on `notice' as to what has taken place and the theory that the plaintiffs plan to pursue in their attempt for recovery." Impink v. City of Indianapolis, Bd. of Pub. Works, 612 N.E.2d 1125, 1127 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (quoting Lincoln Nat'l Bank v. Mundinger, 528 N.E.2d 829, 835-36 (Ind.App.1988)). A complaint is sufficient if it states any set of allegations, no matter how inartfully pleaded, upon which the trial court could have granted relief. Runde v. Vigus Realty, Inc., 617 N.E.2d 572, 575 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993).
On review, this court views motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim with disfavor because such motions undermine the policy of deciding causes of action on their merits. Hill v. Beghin, 644 N.E.2d 893, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.1994),trans. denied. A dismissal is improper unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts. Obremski v. Henderson, 497 N.E.2d 909, 910 (Ind.1986). We will affirm the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss when a complaint states a set of facts which, even if true, would not support the relief requested in that complaint. Garage Doors of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Morton, 682 N.E.2d 1296, 1301 (Ind.Ct.App.1997),trans. denied. Further, we will affirm a successful motion to dismiss if it is sustainable on any theory or basis found in the record. Id.
Initially, Donahue filed an action for damages against the Police Department and two of its officers. In his complaint, he alleged that the officers were liable to him for battery and that the Police Department was liable for the officers' actions under a theory of respondeat superior. However, as we have already noted, the parties later filed a written stipulation to substitute St. Joseph County ("County"), by the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners, as the named defendant. The stipulation was based on the assumptions that Donahue had sued the wrong party, that the Police Department is an agency of the County and that the County was responsible for any injuries Donahue allegedly incurred as a result of the tortious conduct of its employees. We disagree.
In Weatherholt v. Spencer County, 639 N.E.2d 354 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), we held that when an inmate in a county jail is injured as a result of the manner in which the jail is administered and not by any defect in the jail facility, the county does not owe him a duty of care. Id. at 356. In that case, an inmate with a preexisting back condition asked Spencer County jail personnel to make a bottom bunk available to him because his cell-mates refused to give him one. After his request was denied, the inmate was injured when he fell while attempting to climb into a top bunk in his cell. The inmate brought a negligence action against the county. However, the trial court held that Spencer County did not owe the inmate a duty of care under those circumstances. Id. at 355.
In affirming the entry of summary judgment, we determined that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santos v. Cnty. of Lake
...Ind. Aug. 4, 2017); Radcliff v. County of Harrison, 627 N.E.2d 1305, 1306 (Ind. 1994); Donahue v. St. Joseph Cty. ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs of St. Joseph Cty., 720 N.E.2d 1236, 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); Carver v. Crawford, 564 N.E.2d 330, 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990); Delk v. Bd. of Comm'rs of De......
-
City of Gary ex rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
...granted, even when all inferences and intendments are taken, and viewed, in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Donahue v. St. Joseph County, 720 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), and City of New Haven v. Reichart, 729 N.E.2d 600 The Court Finds, Concludes, Adjudges and Decrees that each and ......
-
Hartz v. Lain
...or the Sheriff's Department, aren't responsible for administering the manner of an inmate's incarceration, Donahue v. St. Joseph County, 720 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. App. 1999), and aren't liablefor the acts or omissions of the Sheriff or Sheriff's Department under a respondeat superior theo......
-
Morris v. Sheriff of Allen Cnty.
...county owed him no such duty under the circumstances. Id. 5 In Donahue v. St. Joseph Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs of St. Joseph Cnty., 720 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), the Indiana Court of Appeals reiterated its holding from Weatherholt-“that once the county establishes and then re......