Jaggars v. City of Sheffield
| Decision Date | 21 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:14-cv-158-TMP |
| Parties | REBECCA DARINE JAGGARS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SHEFFIELD, ALABAMA, and C.M. ERGLE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
This cause is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed on February 5, 2014, by the defendants, the City of Sheffield and C.M. Ergle. Defendants seek dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Alabama Code Sections 11-47-23 and 11-47-192. This matter has been fully briefed. The court has considered the pleadings and the arguments set forth by both parties, and the parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Plaintiff Rebecca Darine Jaggars brought this action in the Circuit Court for Colbert County, Alabama, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alabama state law, seeking compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. It was removed to this court by the defendants on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff contends that the defendantswrongfully arrested her, engaged in an unlawful search and seizure, and wrongfully refused to return property to her for a period of 42 days.
Jaggars' claims arise from a traffic incident that occurred on August 21, 2012, in which plaintiff was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a substance that impaired her mental or physical faculties. . She alleges that the City, acting through Sheffield Police Officer C.M. Ergle, falsely arrested her without probable cause and, pursuant to a wrongful search, seized 168 hydrocodone pills and 84 Carisoprodol pills.1 (Doc. 1-1; Complaint; Ex. E). Jaggars alleges generally that the arrest, search and seizure were "all without probable cause," and were pursuant to a "policy, practice, and procedure" of the defendant City. She asserts that the arrest, search, and seizure violated her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution, and also were violative of state law.
Jaggars' complaint provides scant factual allegations. Attached to the complaint as an exhibit, however, is a copy of the arrest report, which indicates that Ergle reported that he was notified by a Florence police officer that Jaggars was driving "very bad" before she crossed the bridge connecting Florence and Sheffield. Ergle arrested Jaggars after she parked at a Sheffield apartment complex.2 His narrative description of the incident in the arrest report states the following:
Received a call that a Florence officer was following a white Dodge Avenger across O'Neal Bridge onto Hatch [Boulevard]. Subject was driving very bad. She had been through two yards. When Officer Ergle arrived she was still sitting in vehicle in parking space at Colbert Square Apartments. Witness Officer Terry Rhea states to me that she was very erratic and that he could see her slapping her face. Officer Ergle spoke with the subject and she was unsure on her feet. She was slurring her words badly. She admits to taking Zanex. She was asked to perform the walk forward and count two. She did not stop at two until Officer stopped her. She could not walk a straight line. She had problems with following small orders. On the GNT her pupil's [sic] began to bounce just past the 15 degree mark. The bounce was very pronounced.
(Ex. B to Complaint, Doc. 1-1, p. 14 of 19). As a result of the stop, plaintiff was arrested for a violation of Alabama law for driving under the influence of an unknown substance which impaired her ability to drive safely. See Alabama Code § 32-5A-191(a)(5) (1975), as incorporated by Sec. 30-4 of the Sheffield Code of Ordinances. Pursuant to the arrest, Officer Ergle searched plaintiff's car and found 168 hydrocodone pills and 84 carisoprodol tablets. Plaintiff was not charged with any offense related to the drugs, but the drugs were seized and never returned to her. On April 15, 2013, on motion by the City of Sheffield, the driving under the influence charge against plaintiff was dismissed. (Ex. D to Complaint, Doc. 1-1, p. 16 of 19). On May 28, 2013, plaintiff filed a verified statement of claim against the City of Sheffield pursuant to Alabama Code §§ 11-47-190 and -192 (1975).
The defendants assert that the claims set forth under Section 1983 are due to be dismissed because they fail to state a claim and because the city is not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978). Defendants further contend that the state-law tortclaims against the city are barred by the notice provisions of Alabama Code §§ 11-47-23 and 11-47-192, and the city is not liable for any punitive damages. Her complaint alleges three causes of action: Count One against both defendants for "violation" of 42 U.S.C. §1983; Count Two against both defendants alleging state-law claims for "wrongfully arresting" plaintiff and "neglectfully, carelessly or unskillfully searching" plaintiff, retaining the pills, and committing "actual negligence;" and Count Three against the City for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention of Ergle.3
Before the Supreme Court decided Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), a court could dismiss a complaint only where it was clear that "no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations," as set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). The well-established Rule 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley was expressly rejected in Twombly, when the Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint and determined:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "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," Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). 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"entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.
550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The Court went on to criticize Conley, stating that "[t]he 'no set of facts' language has been questioned, criticized, and explained away long enough" by courts and commentators, and "is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." 550 U.S. at 562-63. The Supreme Court emphasized, however, that "we do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 550 U.S. at 570. The Supreme Court expanded on the Twombly standard when it decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009), reiterating the Twombly determination that a claim is insufficiently pleaded if it offers only "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The Court further explained:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.... Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where 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."
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50 (citation omitted). See also Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1261 (11th Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1702, 182 L. Ed. 2d 720 (2012) (). Applying these standards, the court examines the merits of the defendants' motion to dismiss.4
The plaintiff asserts in Count One of her complaint that the defendants violated her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but does not otherwise describe or identify the particularrights violated.5 The "factual" allegations of the complaint assert only that she was subjected to "wrongful arrest, wrongful search, wrongful seizure, all without probable cause, and the wrongful retention of plaintiffs [sic] lawful medication,... and wrongfully prosecuting plaintiff...." See Complaint, Doc. 1-1, ¶ 12. Defendants seek dismissal of the claims purporting to allege violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, asserting that the only wrongdoing she alleges must be examined as claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial