Magwood v. Streetman
| Decision Date | 15 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:15-1600-RMG-BM |
| Parties | Andrea J. Magwood, Plaintiff, v. Alice Streetman, Patty Lobik, North Charleston Building Inspection, North Charleston Police Department, South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, LLR, and Geraldine Grant, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
This action, which arises out of Plaintiff's arrest by the North Charleston Police Department, has been filed by the Plaintiff against various Defendants. Plaintiff asserts six separate causes of action.
All of the named Defendants (except for the Defendant Grant) have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12, Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff, who originally filed this action pro se, but is now represented by counsel, has filed memoranda in opposition to all of the motions to dismiss, to which the Defendants have filed reply memoranda. These motions are now before the Court for disposition.1
Plaintiff alleges in her Amended Complaint that she was the owner, and worked at, Genesis Community Center (a/k/a Fair Havens Manor), an assisted living facility in North Charleston, South Carolina. Plaintiff alleges that she has over thirty-five (35) years experience "caring for others", including at the local Veteran Affairs Hospital. Amended Complaint, ¶ ¶ 12, 14. Plaintiff further alleges that she hired only experienced and capable care givers to work at her facility, which were well run and provided quality care to the residents. See generally, Amended Complaint, ¶ ¶ 16-37, 49-50.
Plaintiff alleges that she was "unlawfully" arrested by Officer Tamar Driggers of the North Charleston Police Department on March 12, 2012,2 on the charge of "neglect of a vulnerable adult".3 Plaintiff alleges that this "false charge" was subsequently nolle prosed for insufficientevidence and lack of probable cause. Id., ¶ 38. Even so, Plaintiff alleges that when she was arrested, Driggers kept her "handcuffed in the squad car for over an hour, to the dismay and horror of the residents, causing the Plaintiff emotional distress and injury . . . .". Id., ¶ 39.
Plaintiff alleges that she was falsely charged because of a "false accusation" made by the Defendants Streetman and Lobik. Id., ¶ 41. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Streetman and Lobik alleged that Plaintiff had not taken proper care of a resident named Joseph Roberts (now deceased), even though he was treated very well, received medical care and treatment at the facility, and was referred to a hospital (MUSC) when deemed necessary in March 2012. Id.. Plaintiff also alleges that Streetman told her that she did not think Plaintiff needed more than eight to nine residents, even though Plaintiff was licensed for twenty and the beds were needed. Plaintiff further alleges that once she was permitted to have over fifteen (15) residents, she believes she may have been investigated for not paying Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for the additional residents. Id., ¶ 45.
Plaintiff alleges that "due to ineffective assistance of counsel via a public defender", she pled to "Obstruction of an Investigation of Title 43 Violation" without adequately understanding her rights or the likelihood of success at trial.4 Plaintiff blames this on not being able to afford a private attorney. Plaintiff alleges that she "did not understand that she was entering a guilty plea toanything - she believed that all the charges were being dropped, as they should have been". Plaintiff alleges that her guilty plea was due to her being under too much "anxiety and stress to comprehend" what she was doing. Id., ¶ 48. Plaintiff alleges that this "entire ordeal may have been averted and avoided had not [Defendant] Geraldine Grant falsely reported and misrepresented". Plaintiff alleges that Grant "sought a retaliatory campaign to smear the Plaintiff with misleading, false, and even concocted allegations". Id., ¶ 51.
In her First Cause of Action Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants City of North Charleston, North Charleston Police Department; City of North Charleston, North Charleston Building Inspection Department; South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (LLR); as well as the named natural Defendants Streetman, Lobik and Grant, violated her constitutional rights "when she was unjustly arrested based on improper allegations without supporting evidence", as is demonstrated "by the 'nolle prosequi' ruling". This Cause of Action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.5 See generally, Amended Complaint, ¶ ¶ 53-56.
In her Second Cause of Action Plaintiff asserts a state law claim for malicious prosecution against the Defendants City of North Charleston and North Charleston Police Department. Plaintiff alleges that these Defendants prosecuted Plaintiff on the charge of neglect of a vulnerable adult, and that the Defendants had "malice" in instituting and prosecuting suchproceedings,6 which were eventually terminated in her favor when they were nolle prosed due to lack of probable cause. Id., ¶ ¶ 57-62.
In her Third Cause of Action Plaintiff asserts a common law false imprisonment claim against the Defendants City of North Charleston and North Charleston Police Department. In this cause of action, Plaintiff is asserting the "common law tort of false imprisonment in effecting her arrest". Id., ¶ ¶ 63-68.
In her Fourth Cause of Action Plaintiff asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Outrage) against all of the named Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally or recklessly subjected her to harassing conduct by making a malicious and false statement leading to her arrest, that her arrest was carried out in a manner that unnecessarily humiliated her and distressed the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants actions were so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Id., ¶ ¶ 69-73.
In her Fifth Cause of Action Plaintiff asserts a common law claim of civil conspiracy against all of the named Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that there was collusion among the Defendants to engage in conduct, the primary purpose or object of which was to injure the Plaintiff by making unfounded allegations in order to bring unwarranted criminal charges, and that this conspiracy resulted in special damages to the Plaintiff beyond those of the other allegations of the Complaint.Id., ¶ ¶ 74-80.
Finally, in her Sixth Cause of Action Plaintiff asserts a state law claim of defamation against all the named Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that false and defamatory communiques were issued by all of the Defendants at one time or more, that these communiques were issued to third parties and the public, and that they were false and defamatory as to her profession thereby constituting defamation per se, resulting in damages to the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, as well as other relief. See generally, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
When considering a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Court is required to accept the allegations in the pleading as true, and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. The motion can be granted only if the Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient factual matters in the Complaint to state a plausible claim for relief "on its face". Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "[O]n a motion to dismiss, the Court does not weigh the strength of the evidence, and simply considers whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts which, if true, would permit a reasonable fact finder to find defendants liable." Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC, 318 F.Supp. 2d 136, 144 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). After consideration of Defendants' motions pursuant to this standard, the undersigned finds for the reasons set forth hereinbelow that the motions should be granted, in part, and denied in part.
As noted, Plaintiff's First Cause of Action is against all of the named Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that her constitutional rights were violated when she "was unjustly arrested basedon improper allegations without supporting evidence". This is a quintessential false arrest claim.7
City Department Defendants. Initially, the Defendant North Charleston Police Department correctly notes that it is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983. See generally, McNeil v. Rockhill Police Department, No. 12-933, 2012 WL 6863917, at * 2 (D.S.C. Dec. 27, 2012) []; Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444 (10th Cir. 1985) []; Shelby v. City of Atlanta, 578 F.Supp. 1368, 1370 (N.D.Ga. 1984) []. Similarly, the North Charleston Building Inspection Department is also "merely the vehicle through which the City government fulfils" its governmental function of issuing building permits, and is therefore also not a legal entity subject to suit under § 1983. Shelby, 578 F.Supp. at 1370; cf. College Hill Properties, LLC v. City of Worcester, 135 F.Supp.3d 10, 12, n. 1 (D.Mass. 2015) []. Rather, the City of North Charleston is the proper entity to sue under this claim. Cf. Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 750 F.Supp. 1131 (S.D.Fl. 1990) []; College Hill, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial