Folkerts v. City of Algona, an Iowa Mun. Corp.

• Decision Date: 11 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. C 15-3142-MWB,C 15-3142-MWB
• Parties: MELISSA JEAN FOLKERTS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALGONA, an Iowa Municipal Corporation, and JUSTIN A. WOOD, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

MELISSA JEAN FOLKERTS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALGONA, an Iowa Municipal Corporation,and JUSTIN A. WOOD, Defendants.

No. C 15-3142-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

December 11, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS III-VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2

A. Procedural Background ........................................................... 2

B. Factual Background ............................................................... 4

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 9

A. Standards For Dismissal For Failure To State A Claim .................... 9

B. "Relation Back" Challenges .................................................... 13

1. Arguments of the parties ................................................ 13

2. "Relation back" standards .............................................. 14

3. Application of the standards ........................................... 16

a. The new "malicious prosecution" claim in Count III .......................................................... 16

b. The new "Monell liability" theory in ¶ 16 .................. 17

C. Legal Insufficiency Challenges ................................................ 20

1. The "negligence" claim in Count IV ................................. 21

2. The Iowa constitutional claims in Count VII ....................... 23

D. Factual Insufficiency Challenges .............................................. 24

1. The "intentional infliction of emotional distress" claim in Count VI ........................................................ 24

2. The constitutional claims in Count VII .............................. 27

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 30

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

In this action, plaintiff Melissa Jean Folkerts asserts state and federal claims arising from what she contends were her "illegal" traffic stop, detention, interrogation, arrest, and prosecution by Algona City Police Officer Justin Wood, and possibly other officers, on or about August 26, 2013. Folkerts filed her original Petition (State Petition) (docket no. 3) in the Iowa District Court For Kossuth County on August 19, 2015. In her State Petition, she asserted claims of "Count I - Negligence," "Count II - Intentional" [sic], "Count III - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," and "Count IV - Violation of Civil Rights." On September 9, 2015, the defendants, the City of Algona and Officer Wood, removed this action to this federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a), 1441(a), and 1446. See Notice of Removal (docket no. 2). The next day, the defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 5), seeking dismissal of Folkerts's State Petition, in its entirety, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In response, on September 30, 2015, Folkerts filed her First Amended Complaint (docket no. 7). See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (permitting amendment "as a matter of course" within 21 days after the filing of a Rule 12(b) motion). In her First Amended Complaint, Folkerts added considerably more extensive allegations, as ¶¶ 3-10, and three entirely new claims, denominated "Count I - False Imprisonment," "Count II - False Arrest," and "Count III - Malicious Prosecution," but retained verbatim her originalclaims, renumbered as Counts IV through VII.¹ Folkerts also amended the concluding paragraphs of the State Petition in the First Amended Complaint. First, she added an allegation concerning "Monell liability"² of the City. See First Amended Complaint, ¶ 16. She also modified the jurisdictional, venue, and amount in controversy allegations to conform to federal requirements, see id. at ¶¶ 20-21; and compare State Petition, post-count ¶¶ 3-4, and added an allegation of entitlement to recovery of attorney's fees under federal law, see id. at ¶ 22. In the "WHEREFORE" paragraph of her First Amended Complaint, as in that paragraph of her State Petition, Folkerts prays for an award of compensatory and punitive damages that will adequately compensate her for her injuries and an award of damages as described therein, including attorney's fees, and any other damages allowable under law and as deemed just by the court. The First Amended Complaint necessarily rendered moot the defendants' original Motion To Dismiss.³

After the filing of Folkerts's First Amended Complaint, the defendants filed their October 8, 2015, Motion To Dismiss Counts III-VII Of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (docket no. 11), which is now before me. In that Motion, the defendants renew and amend their challenges to Folkerts's original claims, now renumbered, and add challenges to her new "malicious prosecution" claim and her claim of "Monellliability" of the City. On October 28, 2015, Folkerts filed her Resistance To Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 12). The defendants filed no reply.

B. Factual Background

Because this case is before me on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the pertinent factual background is necessarily drawn from Folkerts's First Amended Complaint. See, e.g., Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 5B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)). I find that a comparison of the general allegations in Folkerts's State Petition with those in her First Amended Complaint will be helpful to the analysis of some of the issues raised in the defendants' Motion To Dismiss.

The entirety of Folkerts's general allegations in her State Petition are incorporated verbatim into her First Amended Complaint. Those allegations are the following:

1. The plaintiff, Melissa Folkerts, has at all times material hereto resided in Kossuth County, Iowa.

2. Defendant City of Algona, Iowa, is a municipality and municipal corporation within the State of Iowa. Defendant Justin A Wood at all times material hereto was a resident of Kossuth County, Iowa, or otherwise subject to personal jurisdiction of the Iowa District Court by contacts within the State of Iowa.

3. On or about the 26th day of August, 2013, the plaintiff was arrested by officer Justin Wood and perhaps other, as of yet unidentified, officers of the Algona Police Department or other agencies.

4. The officer illegally detained the plaintiff for two or more hours, later arrested her and had her held in the Kossuth County Jail in Algona, Iowa.

At all times material hereto, the Algona Police Department officer(s) was (were) employee(s) of the City ofAlgona, Iowa, and were acting on the entity's behalf and within the scope of their authorities and duties as employee(s) of said entity.

5. Plaintiff's arrest and subsequent charge filed against her were illegal and without reasonable suspicion.

6. Defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to protect plaintiff from illegally arresting her, detaining her and charging her with a crime she did not commit.

7. That at the time and place aforesaid, the defendants were responsible for one or more of the following wrongful acts or omissions which violated the duty owed to plaintiff:

[The counts alleging certain claims follow.]

State Petition at ¶¶ 1-7; First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 1-2, 11-15. It is fair to say that these allegations provide almost no factual detail about the circumstances or conduct of any persons on which Folkerts's claims are based.

Paragraphs 3 through 10 of the First Amended Complaint attempt to provide the factual detail missing from the State Petition, as follows:

3. Onor about the 26th day of August, 2013, Algona dispatch received an anonymous call from a male person who said that a blue car or maroon pickup would be dropping off methamphetamine at the Karen McGee and Richie Folkerts residence in Algona. The caller spoke with Officer Wood and although the caller initially wished to remain anonymous, he later identified himself as "David Bolie" or a similar name. This caller was in fact Plaintiffs abusive ex-boyfriend and he gave a fake name. Officer Wood never [made (?)] any effort to confirm the identity of the caller.

4. Officer Wood drove to the McGee and Folkerts' residence and saw a blue car parked in the driveway. Upon the blue car driving away from the residence, Officer Woodfollowed the vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. Officer Wood's claimed basis for the stop was the car twice crossing a white bicycle/edge/fog line. Officer Wood was in fact relying on the unreliable "anonymous tip" as a basis for the stop. After initiating the stop, Officer Wood conducted a search of [the] car. Officer Wood claims there was consent to search, but in fact there was not.

5. Officer Wood claims to have found a tin with the smell of marijuana. There was in fact no tin with a smell of marijuana. Officer Wood claims to have observed evidence of methamphetamine usage by plaintiff, such as uncontrollable body movements, and evidence of marijuana usage, such as a green tint on plaintiff's tongue. There was no uncontrollable body movements or green tint or any other indicator of drug usage. Officer Wood administered to plaintiff field sobriety tests. Officer Wood claims that plaintiff failed all the tests administered except the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Plaintiff in fact passed the field sobriety tests or else the tests were administered incorrectly and were therefore unreliable.

6. During the stop, at least two additional officers were at the scene and participated in the stop, search, interrogation, and arrest of plaintiff. Plaintiff was treated disrespectfully by the officers. The entire ordeal, including the interrogation and arrest, was contentious, and officers' conduct and speech indicated that they believed Plaintiff was not being cooperative with the officers' demands.

...