Hess v. City of Huber Heights
| Decision Date | 08 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:13-cv-312 |
| Parties | GLEN A. HESS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This case is before the Court on three separate motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Mathias Heck, the Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney; the City of Huber Heights, Ohio2 ("City"); City Mayor Ron Fisher; City Council members Lu Dale, Karen Kaleps, Tyler Starline, Judy Blankenship, Tracy Dudley, Ed Lyons, Mark Campbell and Jan Vargo; City Code Enforcement Administrator Jason Foster; City Law Director Alan Schaeffer; City Police Chief Robert Schommer; City police officers Benjamin Wunderlich, Anthony Ashley, Jacob Neal, Tammy Shoemaker; and City Prosecutor Robert Coughlin. Docs. 6, 9, 10. Hess filed memoranda in opposition to the motions to dismiss. Docs. 12, 20. Defendant Coughlin filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss. Doc. 24. The Court has carefully considered each of these documents, and the three motions to dismiss are now ripe for decision.
In addition, Hess moves for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 14) and has attached a proposed amended complaint (doc. 14-1) to his motion. Defendants filed memoranda in opposition to Hess's request for leave arguing that amendment is futile because the proposed amended complaint adds only conclusory allegations without additional factual averments. Docs. 15, 16. Hess's motion for leave is also ripe.
The factual underpinnings of Hess's pro se complaint are more fully set forth below in addressing whether his various claims, spread among eight causes of action, state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Construing his claims liberally and in the light most favorable to him, see infra, Hess complains of what can be described as a series of "run-ins" with City officials, as well as County Prosecutor Heck, spanning a period of approximately twenty-two years.3 Doc. 2. The most recent of these incidents concerns an alleged probation violation occurring in September 2011, as well as two littering citations issued in June 2012. Id. at PageID 34-36, 43-45. Hess alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in conjunction with pursuing these charges, as well as engaging in other various conduct, and seeks relief for such violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Id. Hess also asserts violations of the Ohio Constitution and state tort claims against Defendants. Id.
As correctly noted by Defendants (docs. 15, 16), Hess's proposed amended complaint (doc. 14-1) adds no new substantive factual averments to the allegations of the originalcomplaint. Instead, the proposed amended complaint adds additional conclusory legal assertions without any additional supporting facts.
A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) operates to test the sufficiency of the complaint and permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To show grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that the complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." While Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Pleadings offering mere "'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In determining a motion to dismiss, "courts 'are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Further, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.
In order "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In addition to well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, the Court may also consider "matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint[.]" Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
A claim is plausible where "plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plausibility "is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheerpossibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "[W]here 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.'" Id. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
While pro se parties must satisfy basic pleading requirements, Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989), their pleadings must be liberally construed and "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nevertheless, "even a pro se complaint 'must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ogle v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 513 F. App'x 520, 522 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
In his first cause of action, Hess alleges that he contracted to purchase a used Bobcat4 and trailer from Jason Packett in August 2011. Doc. 2 at PageID 34. Believing that Packett may not have been the true owner of the equipment, Hess contacted Huber Heights police to request a background check on the equipment to ensure he was purchasing it with a clean title. Id. at PageID 34-35. Hess alleges that an unidentified Huber Heights police officer approved the contract and apparently ensured him that the Bobcat was not stolen. Id. at PageID 35. Based upon the unidentified police officer's approval of the contract and apparent confirmation that the equipment was not stolen, Hess proceeded to purchase the equipment. Days later, an unidentified Huber Heights police officer confronted Hess at his home and asked him why hewas storing a stolen Bobcat on his property. Id. On September 22, 2011, Montgomery County, Ohio prosecutors charged Hess with a probation violation for receiving stolen property. Id. at PageID 36. Liberally construed, these allegations assert a claim of malicious prosecution.5
In moving to dismiss the first cause of action, Defendants assert that, even if the events occurred as Hess alleges, the claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations6 and Hess's allegations fail to meet basic pleading standards. With regard to the sufficiency of the pleadings, "each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; see also Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 596 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus, "damage claims against government officials arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must allege, with particularity, facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted constitutional right." Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008). "Merely listing names in the caption of the complaint and alleging constitutional violations in the body of the complaint is not enough to sustain recovery" against individual actors for alleged constitutional violations. Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 92 F. App'x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978)); seealso Frazier v. Mich., 41 F. App'x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) ().
A plaintiff must "allege that a specific defendant performed a specific act that suffices to state a [federal civil rights] claim." Kesterson v. Moritsugu, No. 96-5898, 1998 WL 321008, at *4 (6th Cir. Jun. 3, 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief in the absence of allegations "'that particular defendants performed the acts that resulted in a deprivation of [plaintiff's] constitutional rights." Marcilis, 693 F.3d at 605 (alterations in original). Simply "'lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct'" fails "'to satisfy [the] minimum standard' that 'a complaint give each defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the ground upon which it rests[.]'" Id. (quoting Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 F. App'x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001)).
Here, Hess's first cause of action alleges a single specific action against one specifically identified Defendant, i.e., Shoemaker. In total, Hess alleges that Shoemaker questioned him about the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the Bobcat.7 Doc. 2 at PageID 36. Hess then sets forth the conclusory accusation that Shoemaker "is guilty of giving false statement[s] on affidavits, filing false charges against [him], Conspiracy Criminal and Civil," without a single factual averment supporting these accusations. Id.
In his proposed amended complaint, instead of singling out Shoemaker, Hess also accuses Heck, Fisher, Dale, Starline, Blankenship, Dudley, Lyons, Campbell, Vargo, and theCity itself of "giving false statement[s] on affidavits, filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial