James Hicks v. City of Millersville
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-00837 |
| Decision Date | 22 August 2022 |
| Parties | MASON ROBERT JAMES HICKS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MILLERSVILLE et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arises from pro se Plaintiff Mason Robert James Hicks's arrest and prosecution for mailbox tampering. (Doc. No. 1.) Hicks brings claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Tennessee common law against Defendants Judge Dee David Gay; the State of Tennessee; the City of Millersville Tennessee; Millersville Police Officers Melissa Pearce and Blake Riley; and Millersville Assistant Police Chief Dustin Carr. (Id.)
Now before the Court are the State and Gay's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 18), to which Hicks has not responded, and Pearce and Riley's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 24), to which Hicks has responded in opposition (Doc. No. 39). Pearce and Riley have filed a reply in support of their motion (Doc. No. 40).[1] For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the State and Gay's motion to dismiss be granted and Pearce and Riley's motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.
On March 18, 2019, the Millersville Police Department received a report that a suspicious person was looking into mailboxes in a residential neighborhood. (Doc. No. 1.) Pearce was dispatched to investigate and spoke to a police officer who lived in the neighborhood. (Id.) Pearce then informed other Millersville officers that there had been “a black Mercedes in the neighborhood that should not be there.” (Id. at PageID# 4, ¶ 5.3.)
Pearce also spoke to witness Allison Absher, who told her that “the suspicious person was a white male, approx[imately]” five feet and eleven inches tall, with a “slender build and wearing a light grey hoodie that was covering his face.” (Id. at PageID# 5, ¶ 5.5.) Absher reported that the individual had looked into three mailboxes and opened a car door. (Doc. No. 1.) The car and one of the mailboxes that Absher identified were located in front of Hicks's home. (Id.)
Riley, acting at Carr's direction, stopped a black Mercedes in another neighborhood. (Id.) Riley identified the driver, a five-foot-ten white male, then allowed him to leave. (Id.) Pearce later testified that the driver of the Mercedes did not match Absher's description of the suspect. (Id.)
Hicks noticed the police officers in his neighborhood and came outside to see what was happening. (Id.) Pearce took several pictures of Hicks, who was wearing a tan hooded sweatshirt, and showed them to Absher. (Id.) Absher told Pearce that she was “‘pretty sure'” that Hicks “was the person she saw[,]” and Pearce informed the other officers that Absher believed Hicks was the individual they were looking for. (Id. at PageID# 6, ¶ 5.9.) Hicks alleges that Pearce later stated that she went to each of the homes where mailbox tampering had been reported and told the residents that Hicks had been looking in their mailboxes, and that all of the residents told her they wanted to press charges. (Doc. No. 1.)
When Hicks started to cross the street to speak to a neighbor, Pearce yelled for him to stop so that she could talk to him. (Id.) Hicks responded that “he doesn't talk to Millersville Police without a lawyer.” (Id. at PageID# 6-7, ¶ 5.12.) Pearce then arrested and handcuffed Hicks, and did not respond when Hicks asked why he was being arrested. (Doc. No. 1.) Hicks's cell phone began to ring, and Hicks told Pearce that his mother was calling and asked if he could answer. (Id.) Pearce said no and “made fun of him ....” (Id. at PageID# 7, ¶ 5.13.)
Riley transported Hicks to the Millersville Police Department, where Riley wrote an arrest warrant affidavit under Carr's supervision. (Doc. No. 1.) Carr told Riley to rewrite the affidavit, stating, “‘you can't make it sound like we are having him arrested[;] you have to say that they wanted him arrested[.]'” (Id. at PageID# 7, ¶ 5.14.) The arrest warrant, which was based on information provided by Pearce, “stated [that] officers had spoken to several witnesses[,]” “w[ere] given a good description of a suspect,” and “that multiple witnesses identified . . . Hicks as the suspect.” (Id. at ¶ 5.15.) Hicks was charged with one count of mailbox tampering and taken to the Sumner County Jail. (Doc. No. 1.)
Hicks asserts that the arrest was actually based on “a ‘limited description'” provided by one witness. (Id. at PageID# 11, ¶ 5.34.) Hicks alleges that he was the only person in the photographs Pearce showed Absher, that Pearce told Absher his name while showing her the photos, that Absher's account of the identification contradicts Pearce's testimony, and that “Pearce lost, destroyed or deleted the photographic evidence that” she showed to Absher. (Id. at PageID# 12, ¶ 5.42.) He also claims “that the Millersville Police Department does not have a policy/training on how or when to conduct photo line ups[,]” “how or when to make [a] custodial arrest for crimes occurring outside the officer[']s presence[,]” and “evidence collection and retention.” (Id. at PageID# 10, ¶¶ 5.29-5.31.)
Hicks appeared in court for a preliminary hearing on July 15, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) Both Absher and Pearce testified at the preliminary hearing. (Id.) The case was bound over to a Sumner County grand jury, which returned an indictment on four counts of mailbox tampering. (Id.) All four counts were dismissed on November 5, 2020, at the request of the Sumner County District Attorney. (Id.)
Hicks initiated this action on November 4, 2021, by filing a complaint against the State of Tennessee, the City of Millersville, Gay, Pearce, Riley, and Carr. (Id.) The complaint asserts false arrest and malicious prosecution claims against Pearce, Riley, and Carr under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Tennessee common law and a municipal liability claim against the City of Millersville under § 1983 and the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). (Id.) The complaint does not identify what claims Hicks asserts against the State or Gay. Hicks seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees. (Id.)
The State and Gay filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).[3] (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) The State and Gay argue that any claims against them should be dismissed because the complaint does not contain any factual allegations against Gay, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars any claim for money damages against Gay in his individual capacity, and sovereign immunity bars any § 1983 claims against the State. (Doc. No. 19.)
Pearce and Riley filed a motion to dismiss Hicks's claims against them under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. Nos. 24, 25.) They argue that Hicks's state and federal false arrest claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, that Hicks has not alleged sufficient facts to state a malicious prosecution claim against Riley, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Hicks's claims that there was not probable cause for his arrest and prosecution because the state court found probable cause to support the charges against him in a preliminary hearing. (Doc. No. 25.)
Hicks responded in opposition to Pearce and Riley's motion to dismiss, arguing that he has alleged sufficient facts to state a malicious prosecution claim against Riley and that collateral estoppel does not bar his claims against Pearce and Riley. (Doc. No. 39.) In reply, Pearce and Riley argue that Hicks has abandoned his state-law malicious prosecution claims against Riley and his false arrest claims against both defendants by failing to respond to their arguments regarding those claims. (Doc. No. 40.) They also reiterate that the finding of probable cause in Hicks's preliminary hearing “is fatal to [his] claims” in this action. (Id. at PageID# 209.)
Hicks did not respond to the State and Gay's motion to dismiss and, instead, moved for an extension of time to amend the complaint. (Doc. No. 33.) The Court ordered Hicks to “file an amended complaint or respond to Gay and the State of Tennessee's motion to dismiss by no later than June 21, 2022.” (Doc. No. 52, PagelD# 327-28.) That deadline has passed, and Hicks has not filed an amended complaint or a response to Gay and the State's motion to dismiss. The Court will therefore consider that motion to be unopposed.
Federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction and can adjudicate only those claims authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. Chase Bank USA, N.A v. City of Cleveland, 695 F.3d 548, 553 (6th Cir. 2012). Article III of the Constitution extends the federal judicial power “to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,” and several other categories of cases not at issue here.[4] U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (). Congress has also granted federal courts diversity jurisdiction over civil actions in which the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a “threshold” question in any action. Am. Telecom Co. v. Republic of Lebanon, 501 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial