Hoskins v. Knox Cnty.

Decision Date15 March 2018
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 17-84-DLB-HAI
PartiesAMANDA HOSKINS, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. KNOX COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. DEFENDANTS
CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On March 15, 2012, Plaintiffs Amanda Hoskins and Jonathan Taylor were arrested for robbery and murder. Hoskins and Taylor spent three years and five years, respectively, incarcerated and awaiting trial. That trial never came. Instead, in the summer of 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky dropped the criminal charges and acknowledged that there was a lack of probable cause to support either prosecution. From the ashes of that criminal case, this civil action arose.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action seeking recompense for alleged violations of their constitutional rights, as well as various state-law torts, against ten law-enforcement officers and the municipal governments those officers represent. Specifically, the Plaintiffs have filed suit against the following Defendants: Kentucky State Police ("KSP") Troopers Jason York, Jason Bunch, and Dallas Eubanks (the "Primary KSP Defendants"); KSP Troopers Bryan Johnson, Mark Mefford, Kelly Farris, and Jackie Pickrell Joseph (the "Secondary KSP Defendants"); Knox County, former Knox County Sheriff John Pickard, and Deputy Derek Eubanks (the "Knox County Defendants"); and the City of Barbourville and Barbourville Police Officer Mike Broughton (the "Barbourville Defendants"). (Doc. # 1). The Court has federal-question jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2010, Katherine Mills's body was found at her home in Flat Lick, Kentucky.1 (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 20). The Kentucky State Police, the Barbourville Police Department, and the Knox County Sheriff's Department commenced a joint investigation into her murder. Id. at ¶ 21. Because $12,000 had been stolen from Ms. Mills's home, the officers believed that the murder was financially motivated. Id. at ¶ 22. Early on, the investigation focused on three suspects: Allen Helton—a confidential informant for the investigating agencies—Jesse Lawson—Ms. Mills's grandson by marriage—and Mike Simpson. Id. at ¶¶ 23-25. The Plaintiffs allege that there was substantial evidence implicating Helton, Lawson, and Simpson. Id. at ¶¶ 25-44. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant Officers knew that Helton and Simpson were in desperate need for money on the morning of Ms. Mills's murder, that they fled Kentucky immediately after the murder, that Simpson used cash to rent the car they drove from Kentucky to Florida, that they were in possession of a large amount of cash upon their return, that Simpson had prepared a note with a list of purported alibi witnesses before ever being asked about the murder, and that Helton and Lawson had failed polygraph examinations questioning them about their involvement in the robbery and murder of Ms. Mills. Id.

Despite the "mounting evidence against" Helton, Lawson, and Simpson, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Officers conspired to frame them, and accomplished this task by "coercing witnesses, fabricating statements, and committing other acts of egregious misconduct." Id. at ¶¶ 45-48. In support of that allegation, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant Officers coerced Bob Smith, Christy Branson, Joe King, Allen Helton, and Amber Simpson into fabricating statements that falsely implicated the Plaintiffs; that the Defendant Officers falsely reported that Michael Crump had positively identified the Plaintiffs as the people he saw outside Ms. Mills's home on the day of the murder; and that the Defendant Officers altered and falsified Plaintiff Amanda Hoskins's medical records to nullify her alibi.2 Id. at ¶¶ 50-97, 104.

Based on that fabricated evidence, Trooper York signed criminal complaints and initiated charges against the Plaintiffs. Id. at ¶¶ 98, 101. On March 15, 2012—approximately one year and two months after the investigation began—the Plaintiffs were arrested for the robbery and murder of Ms. Mills. Id. at ¶ 99-101. After their arrest, the Plaintiffs allege that additional evidence was fabricated against them. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant Officers coerced Daniel Wilson and Robert Beach into providing false statements that Plaintiff Jonathan Taylor had confessed to the murder.3 Id. at ¶¶ 114-117, 118-125.

While they were awaiting trial, the Plaintiffs were incarcerated. Id. at ¶¶ 132, 135. But a trial never commenced. On June 29, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a motion seeking dismissal of the criminal charges against Plaintiff Jonathan Taylor because probable cause did not exist. That motion was granted on June 30, 2016, after Taylor had spent approximately five years in jail. Id. at ¶¶ 128-130, 132. On July 29, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a similar motion dismissing the criminal charges against Plaintiff Amanda Hoskins. That motion was granted on August 22, 2016, after Hoskins had spent approximately three years in jail. Id. at ¶¶ 131, 135.

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action alleging multiple constitutional violations, as well as state-law tort claims against the Defendants. (Doc. # 1). The Barbourville Defendants and the Knox County Defendants filed Answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint on May 2, 2017 and May 3, 2017, respectively. (Docs. # 30 and 31). Instead of answering Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Primary KSP Defendants and the Secondary KSP Defendants (collectively "the KSP Defendants") filed Motions to Dismiss. (Docs. # 36 and 39). Shortly thereafter, the Barbourville Defendants and the Knox County Defendants filed Responses in support of the KSP Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, joining in their co-defendants' arguments and asking the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against them for the same, and additional, reasons. (Docs. # 44 and 54). After filing their own Response opposing the KSP Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. # 55), Plaintiffs filed Motions to Strike the Barbourville Defendants' and the Knox County Defendants' Responses as untimely Motions to Dismiss. (Docs. # 56 and 57). The KSP Defendants then filed a Joint Reply in support of their Motions to Dismiss (Doc. # 60), and the Barbourville Defendants and Knox County Defendants filed Responses in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike.(Docs. # 61 and 62). Thus, the Motions to Dismiss and the Motions to Strike are fully briefed (Docs. # 36, 39, 55, 60, 56, 57, 61, and 62) and ripe for review.4

II. ANALYSIS

This matter is currently before the Court upon both substantive and procedural motions—four Motions to Dismiss, two of which are disguised as "Responses," and two Motions to Strike. First, the Court will address the parties' procedural motions, and then the Court will turn to the parties' substantive motions.

A. Motions to Strike

Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike the Knox County Defendants' and the Barbourville Defendants' Responses as untimely Motions to Dismiss. (Docs. # 56 and 57). The Knox County Defendants and the Barbourville Defendants contest the characterization of their "Responses" as Motions to Dismiss. (Docs. # 61 at 1; 62 at 2). Accepting that argument, however, would elevate form over substance. (Docs. # 44 at 2; 54 at 2) (indicating that the Defendants "file this Response ... and concurrently seek dismissal of all claims against them."). Despite the innocuous titles, the Knox County Defendants and Barbourville Defendants filed dispositive motions masquerading as "Responses."

The trouble, of course, is that neither the Knox County Defendants nor the Barbourville Defendants are in a position to file a procedurally proper dispositive motion. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) must "be made before pleading," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), and both the Knox County Defendants and the Barbourville Defendants filedanswers before they filed their "me too" motions.5 (Docs. # 30 and 31). Therefore, those post-answer Motions to Dismiss are untimely. McGlone v. Bell, 681 F.3d 718, 728 n.2 (6th Cir. 2012) ("Defendants filed an untimely motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 12(b)(6), as it was filed after Defendants' Answer.").

A motion for judgment on the pleadings, on the other hand, would be premature. Under Rule 12(c), a party cannot move for judgment on the pleadings until after the pleadings have "closed." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). "As a number of other district courts in this Circuit have noted, the pleadings are not closed until all defendants have filed an answer, even when one defendant has filed a motion to dismiss instead of answering." Wells Fargo Fin. Leasing, Inc. v. Griffin, 970 F. Supp. 2d 700, 705 (W.D. Ky. 2013) (citing Nationwide Children's Hosp., Inc. v. D.W. Dickey & Son, Inc. Emp. Health & Welfare Plan, No. 2:08-cv-1140-GLF, 2009 WL 5247486, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 31, 2009); Dunn-Mason v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 11-cv-13419, 2013 WL 4084676, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2013); Horen v. Bd. of Educ. of Toledo Sch. Dist., 594 F. Supp. 2d 833, 840 (N.D. Ohio 2009)). Because the KSP Defendants have not yet filed answers, the pleadings have not "closed" for purposes of Rule 12(c), and any construed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings would be premature.

When presented with this procedural predicament, other district courts in this Circuit have considered premature Rule 12(c) motions and permitted post-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Horen, 594 F. Supp. 2d at 840-41 (construing premature Rule 12(c) motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss after other parties answered); Signature Combs, Inc. v. United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1030 (W.D. Tenn. 2003) (consideringRule 12(c) motion, although premature when filed, after all other defendants had answered); Gillespie v. City of Battle Creek, 100 F. Supp. 3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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