Hobson v. Billotte
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-00405 |
| Parties | FAYE RENNELL HOBSON (MORALES) v. KAYLA BILLOTTE, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
TO Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., District Judge
REPORTAND RECOMENDATION
This pro se case has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court. See Order entered June 4, 2021 (Docket Entry No. 4).
Presently pending before the Court are: (1) the motion to dismiss of the City of Clarksville, Tennessee (on behalf of Kayla Billotte and the Clarksville Police Department) (Docket Entry No. 10) and (2) the motion to dismiss of Nicholas Oakes and Montgomery County, Tennessee (named as Clarksville Montgomery County Tennessee Sheriff Department) (Docket Entry No. 23). Plaintiff has responded in opposition to the motions. For the reasons set out below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that these motions be granted. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 36). For the reasons set out below, the Court recommends that this motion be denied.
Faye Rennell Hobson (Morales) (“Plaintiff) initiated this pro se lawsuit on May 20, 2021, by filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her federal, constitutional rights. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). The lawsuit filed by Plaintiff actually consists of two, separately signed complaints that were attached together and filed as a single filing. The first is a typed complaint, id at 1-4, and the second is a form civil rights complaint that was filled out by Plaintiff. Id. at 5-10. Given that the two complaints were filed together as a single filing, the Court views them as a single complaint and pleading. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff appears to name four defendants in her pleading. Two of the defendants are clearly identified as Kayla Billotte (“Billotte”), an officer with the Montgomery County Police Department, and Nicholas Oakes (“Oakes”), an officer with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department, both of whom are specifically named in only their official capacities. Id. at 6. It is unclear exactly who Plaintiff intends to name as the other two defendants. Plaintiff lists the Montgomery County Police Department (“Police Department”) and the Clarksville Montgomery County Sheriff's Department (“Sheriff's Department”) in the case heading and as defendants. Id. at 7. She also lists Police Chief David Crockarell (“Crockarell”) and Sheriff John Fuson (“Fuson”) in conjunction with listing the respective police and sheriff's departments as defendants, id. at 7, and lists them individually as having acted under color of state law. Id. at 8. However, Plaintiff names them in only their official capacities and makes no factual allegations against them. Id. at 8.
Likewise, Plaintiff's pleading contains virtually no factual allegations about the events upon which the lawsuit is based. The only factual allegations that can be gleaned from Plaintiff's pleading are that Oakes arrested Plaintiff on May 20, 2020, on the first floor of the Montgomery County Courthouse and that Billotte is alleged to have “falsified a police report.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff lists six claims: (1) “false arrest/false imprisonment, Tennessee Code 39-13-302 (2017);” (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (); (3) failure to train and negligent hiring and retention; (4) malicious prosecution; (5) intentional infliction of emotions distress; and, (6) “Prohibition of Racial Discrimination: Tennessee Code: 7-82-106 and Discrimination Prohibited: Tennessee Code 4-21-501(2015).” Id. at 2.
Although Plaintiff shipped copies of her complaint to Billotte, Oakes, Crockarell, and Fuson, and to Clarksville City Attorney Lance Baker, on May 20, 2021, by means of United Parcel Services (“UPS”), see Plaintiff's notice (Docket Entry No. 5), she did not have summonses issued in the case until June 7, 2021. See Docket Entry No. 6. She then separately shipped copies of her complaint and a summons, again by UPS, to Billotte and Crockarell at the Police Department and to Oakes and Fuson at the Sheriff's Department, and she filed proof of service forms stating that they had been served by means of her UPS shipping on June 8, 2021. See Docket Entry No. 8.
In response to the lawsuit, the pending motions to dismiss were filed. Plaintiff's contested requests for the entry of default against Oakes and the Fuson were denied by the Clerk of Court on September 14, 2021, upon the Clerk's finding that (1) Plaintiff had not verified proof of service because her usage of the UPS shipping service did not qualify as service of process under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) Defendants had expressed a clear intent to defend the action, as evidenced by the entry of an appearance by counsel on their behalf, their responses in opposition to the requests for entry of default, and their filing of a motion to dismiss. See Denial of Entry of Default at Docket Entry No. 40.
In addition to opposing the motions to dismiss, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Docket Entry No. 36.) By her proposed amendment, she seeks to add seven, new defendants to this case and sets forth legal arguments as to the merits of some of the six claims raised in her original complaint.
The City of Clarksville, Tennessee (“the City of Clarksville”), on behalf of Billotte and the Police Department, seeks to dismiss the case under Rules 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As grounds for dismissal, the City of Clarksville argues: (1) Plaintiff's claims are time barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; (2) the complaint should be dismissed for insufficient process and insufficient service of process; (3) the Police Department is not a legal entity that can be sued and Plaintiff's official capacity claims should be viewed as claims against the City of Clarksville; (4) Plaintiff fails to set out facts sufficient to support her asserted claims and her complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and, (5) the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201 et seq., provides the City of Clarksville with sovereign immunity from liability for Plaintiff's state law claims. (Docket Entry No. 12.) The motion to dismiss is supported with the affidavits of Billotte and Crockarell, a copy of an affidavit of complaint from Billotte, dated May 16, 2020, and a copy of an arrest warrant for Plaintiff, dated May 20, 2020, signed by Oakes. (Docket Entry No. 13.)
Oakes and Montgomery County, Tennessee (“Montgomery County”), on behalf of the Sheriff's Department, seek to dismiss the case under Rules 12(b)(4) and (5), arguing that Plaintiff has failed to properly serve them with process. They contend that the Sheriff's Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued and that Plaintiff's claims against the Sheriff's Department and against Oakes in his official capacity are, under the law, claims against Montgomery County even though Plaintiff has not specifically named Montgomery County as a defendant in the case. (Docket Entry No. 24.) They then argue that Plaintiff has not properly served Montgomery County in accordance with the manner of service required upon a local government under Rule 4(j)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
Plaintiff filed various responses in opposition to the motions to dismiss. See Plaintiff's responses in opposition (Docket Entry Nos. 27 and 28), response to the City of Clarksville's evidentiary filings (Docket Entry Nos. 29-33), and motion to deny Defendants' late filing (Docket Entry Nos. 34-35). Plaintiff asserts that her civil rights were violated and that she is entitled to seek redress for these violations, that Defendants have not raised a meritorious defense to any of her claims, and that it is obvious from Defendants' own filings that they received copies of the summons and complaint and were therefore served with process.
A motion seeking dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) challenges the adequacy of process and/or “the manner or method of service” of a summons or complaint. Buck Mountain Cmty. Org. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 629 F.Supp.2d 785, 792 n.5 (M.D. Tenn. 2009). In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(4) and (5), the court may refer to record evidence in determining the sufficiency of service[, ]” including “uncontroverted affidavits[.]” Metro. Alloys Corp. v. State Metals Indus., Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 561, 563 (E.D. Mich. 2006); see also Wanke v. Invasix Inc., 2020 WL 2542594, at *5 (). It is the plaintiff's burden to establish that service was proper. See Sawyer v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't, 18 Fed.App'x 285, 287 (6th Cir. 2001).
A motion seeking dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed under the standard that the court must accept all of the well pleaded allegations contained in the complaint as true resolve all doubts in Plaintiff's favor, and construe the complaint liberally in favor of the pro se Plaintiff. See Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006); Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial