Harris v. Falls

Decision Date30 January 2013
Docket NumberCase No. 2:12–CV–1075–SLB.
Citation920 F.Supp.2d 1247
PartiesSteven S. HARRIS, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brandon K. FALLS, individually and in his official capacity as the District Attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Amber L. Ladner, Bradford Ingram & Ladner LLP, Mountain Brook, AL, William K. Bradford, Bradford Ladner, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Jeffery H. Long, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN, Chief Judge.

This case is presently pending before the court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 5.) 1 Plaintiff, Steven S. Harris, Jr., has sued defendant, Brandon K. Falls, the District Attorney for Jefferson County, alleging that defendant violated his constitutional rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable seizure; his claims are based on a number of criminal complaints executed by defendant's investigators,which charged plaintiff with negotiating worthless checks in violation of Alabama law. Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion that defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 5), is due to be granted.

I. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The purpose of such a motion, authorized by Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is to test the facial sufficiency of the plaintiff's statement of a claim for relief. Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.1997). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” American Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir.2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

When addressing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court accepts the allegations in the Complaint as true and construes those allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, 634 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir.2011) (quoting Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 1288). To survive a Motion to Dismiss, “the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 1289 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007))) (internal quotations omitted). A claim is “plausible” if the facts are sufficient “to allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). However, courts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)) (internal quotations omitted). Also, the court does not assume that plaintiff can prove facts she has not alleged or that defendant has violated the law in ways that have not been alleged. Id. at 563 n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citing Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983)). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). [W]hile notice pleading may not require that the pleader allege a ‘specific fact’ to cover every element or allege ‘with precision’ each element of a claim, it is still necessary that a complaint ‘contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.’ Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting In re Plywood Antitrust Litig., 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981)).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff's Complaint contains the following facts:

4. Plaintiff, Steven S. Harris, Jr., ... is an adult resident of Jefferson County, Alabama.

5. Defendant, Brandon K. Falls ..., is the District Attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama. Falls operates the Jefferson County District Attorney's Worthless Check Unit [WCU] as part of the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office Special Services Division. Falls is being sued in his individual capacity as well as in his official capacity as the District Attorney of Jefferson County, Alabama....

...

III. NATURE OF ACTION

7. The Plaintiff brings this action because the Defendant has engaged in acts which violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Defendant is the final policy maker for the Jefferson County District Attorney's Office and all of its divisions and units. The Defendant has established an official policy and practice for [the] Jefferson County District Attorney's Office and the WCU, pursuant to which assistants, employees, investigators and/or agents of the District Attorney are allowed to sign warrant affidavits and/or criminal complaints in the capacity of affiant/complainant under circumstances where they are not a “victim” holding a worthless negotiable instrument, where they lack personal knowledge of the criminal act upon which probable cause may be grounded, and where the warrant affidavit/criminal complaint contains merely bare bones allegations and conclusory language. Further, the Defendant has established a policy under which these same warrant affidavits/criminal complaints are presented to magistrates who issue arrest warrants. The arrest warrants are subsequently executed on the Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The warrant affidavits/criminal complaints are insufficient and not supported by probable cause, and as such, the warrants are void. Further, as a result of the above, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated have been in the past, are presently being, and will be in the future, suffering injury and damages due to their being charged, arrested, jailed, prosecuted, fined, sentenced, and placed upon probation based upon void warrant affidavits/criminal complaints, thereby depriving them of their rights and immunities under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Alabama.

8. Based upon clearly established law, the appropriate person or party to execute an arrest warrants/criminal complaint charging the crime of negotiating a worthless negotiable instrument is the victim who holds a worthless instrument, or[,] in the case of a business, [an] employee with personal knowledge of the crime.

9. The Defendant's policy of allowing the District Attorney's assistants, employees, investigators and/or agents to execute the warrant affidavits/criminal complaints results in a void warrant which further results in the District Court of Jefferson County lacking jurisdiction to act on the case, and in any action taken on the matter being void in its entirety.

10. The practice described above is the official policy of the District Attorney of Jefferson County, Alabama, and has been set by the Defendant as its final policy maker. The practice has been long standing and well settled in nature so as to be the policy regardless of whether or not it has been committed to writing.

...

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. The Jefferson County District Attorney['s] Worthless Check Unit was authorized under Code of Alabama (1975) § 12–17–224. Code of Alabama (1975) § 12–17–224(a) expressly provides that the WCU will be under the “direction and control” of the District Attorney. Falls is the final policy maker for the WCU, the Special Services Division and the District Attorney's Office as a whole, and is statutorily charged with directing and controlling the WCU. As such, the Defendant was the final policy maker regarding the policy complained of in this Complaint.

15. District Attorney Falls, pursuant to Ala.Code §§ 12–17–220 and 224, employs John Carden, Steven Corvin, and Bob Popwell as investigators, and they act as employees or agents of the Defendant. The acts of Carden, Corvin and Popwell listed or complained of in this action were done at the direction and approval of Defendant Falls, and further, were done in accord with the policy and procedures declared by Defendant Falls as the final policy maker of the District Attorney's Office.

16. In Jefferson County District Court Case Number: DC–2011–987, the Plaintiff was charged with Negotiating a Worthless Negotiable Instrument. In this case, Steven Corvin, an investigator with the WCU, swore to and signed the Criminal Complaint as the Complainant on November 29, 2010. The victim in the case is listed as Superdollar Discount Foods. Based upon the Criminal Complaint, a Warrant was issued by the District Court Magistrate on November 29, 2010, and the Plaintiff was arrested on August 24, 2011 by Bobby Popwell of the WCU. Excluding the restitution for the amount of the check, the Plaintiff was assessed fees, costs, and [a] service charge totaling $432.10, received a suspended sentence of 8 days, and was placed on two (2) years probation. (See Attached Exhibit 1).

17. In Jefferson County District Court Case Number: DC–2011–988, the Plaintiff was charged with Negotiating a Worthless Negotiable Instrument. In this case, Steven Corvin, an investigator with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • West v. Honorable Judge Debra Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • May 22, 2015
    ...See Garrett v. Talladega Cnty. Drug & Violent Crime Task Force, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1376 (N.D. Ala. 2013); Harris v. Falls, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 255-56 (N.D. Ala. 2013). And again, the FTCA has no possible application to this case.Any ostensible § 1983 claims for damages against Weems or......
  • Anderson v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • September 29, 2014
    ...118 (Ala. 1978)("[D]istrict attorneys have specifically been declared state officers and not county officers."); Harris v. Falls, 920 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1256 (N.D. Ala. 2013)(Eleventh Amendment barred claims for money damages "[b]ecause defendant, as District Attorney, is a state officer"). Si......
  • McAdams v. King
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • October 25, 2017
    ...the complaint were sworn to by defendant Smith, which provided a reasonable basis for the warrant to issue.6 See Harris v. Falls, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1247, 1260 (N.D. Ala. 2013). The plaintiff's general assertions that probable cause was not established, with no specific factual support, do not......
  • McKinney v. Fannin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • August 3, 2017
    ...the complaint were sworn to by defendant Ledbetter, which provided a reasonable basis for the warrant to issue. See Harris v. Falls, 920 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1260 (N.D.Ala. 2013). Nothing under the Constitution or Alabama law requires an affidavit in support of a warrant be set forth on a wholly......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT