Mccabe v. Basham
| Decision Date | 16 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-CV-0073-LRR.,05-CV-0073-LRR. |
| Citation | 450 F.Supp.2d 916 |
| Parties | Alice MCCABE and Christine Nelson, Plaintiffs, v. W. Ralph BASHAM, Tom Ridge, Kevin Walsh, Michael Parker, Jane Doe Secret Service Agent No. 3, Iowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch and Linn County, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
David A. O'Brien, Willey, O'Brien, Mullin, Laverty & Hanrahan, LC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiffs.
Jeffrey C. Peterzalek, Des Moines, IA, Todd Davis Tripp, Linn County Attorney Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, Zachary Carl Richter, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................919
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................919
III. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ...............................................920
IV. ANALYSIS ...................................................921
A. Personal Jurisdiction ...................................921
1. Legal Standards ......................................922
2. Analysis ............................................924
B. Alternative Arguments ...................................927
V. CONCLUSION .................................................928
The matters before the court are the Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 19) and Renewed Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 31) filed by Defendants W. Ralph Basham and Tom Ridge.
Plaintiffs Alice McCabe and Christine Nelson are Iowa residents who disagree with President George W. Bush's policies. In particular, they do not support the war in Iraq. On September 3, 2004, McCabe and Nelson protested at a Bush re-election rally at Noelridge Park in Cedar Rapids ("Rally"). McCabe held a "No More War" sign. Nelson wore a Kerry-Edwards button.
Defendant W. Ralph Basham is the Director of the United States Secret Service ("Secret Service"). Defendant Tom Ridge is the former Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security ("Department"). The Secret Service is a subdivision of the Department. Basham and Ridge had direct oversight over the Secret Service prior to and during the Rally. Neither Basham nor Ridge is a resident of Iowa.2
While the Rally was underway, an unidentified female Secret Service agent ("Jane Doe Secret Service Agent No. 3") noticed McCabe and Nelson. Jane Doe Secret Service Agent No. 3 told Kevin Walsh and Michael Parker, two other Secret Service agents, to confront Plaintiffs. Jane Doe Secret Service Agent No. 3 ordered Walsh and Parker to confront Plaintiffs solely because Plaintiffs were visibly protesting the Bush Administration. Jane Doe Secret Service Agent No. 3, Walsh, Parker, and Iowa State Patrol Troopers Troy Bailey and Rick Busch had met before the Rally to determine how to deal with protestors. Along with Basham and Ridge, they had "a policy and/or practice of unlawfully and illegally suppressing dissent expressed by individuals openly disagreeing with the policies of the Bush Administration."
While McCabe and Nelson were standing on a public sidewalk near the park, Walsh and Parker approached McCabe and told her that she was standing on "private property" and had to move. Walsh and Parker told McCabe that the park had been rented for the day and that the Republican Party "owned" it. In fact, no one had rented out the park for the Bush re-election campaign's exclusive use.
McCabe agreed to leave the sidewalk. McCabe moved into a parking area between the sidewalk and an adjacent street. Nelson moved to the parking area, as well. Other people who were not visibly disagreeing with the Bush Administration were using the sidewalk but were not ordered to leave.
Walsh and Parker approached McCabe and Nelson again and ordered them to move out of the parking area. McCabe asked the agents why she had to move; McCabe pointed out that a man collecting money for the Republican Party was standing next to her. Bailey arrested McCabe for criminal trespass.
Walsh, Parker and Busch ordered Nelson to leave the parking area. Nelson complied and walked into the street, where other people were located. None of the other people were visibly protesting President Bush.
Busch approached Nelson again and told her she had to move to the other side of the street because "we own this half of the street." While Nelson was moving to the other side of the street, she asked Busch why others were allowed to stay in the street. Busch arrested Nelson for criminal trespass.
McCabe and Nelson were handcuffed and detained in a holding room. They were later transported to the Linn County Jail, where they were processed and strip searched. McCabe and Nelson were strip searched even though there was no reason to believe either had a weapon or contraband.
On December 15, 2004, the Linn County Attorney dropped all criminal charges against McCabe and Nelson.
On April 20, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a sixcount Complaint against the Secret Service, John Doe Secret Service Agent No. 1, John Doe Secret Service Agent No. 2, Jane Doe Secret Service Agent No. 3, the Iowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch and Linn County ("Defendants"). In the first five counts, Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated five fundamental rights provided to them by the Federal Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendants infringed upon their (1) right to freedom of speech, (2) right to freedom of assembly, (3) right against unreasonable searches and seizures, (4) right to equal protection and (5) right to due process. See U.S. Const. amends. I (speech and assembly), IV (search and seizure) and XIV (equal protection and due process); Iowa Const. art. I, §§ 6 (equal protection), 7 (speech), 8 (searches and seizures), 9 (due process) and 20 (assembly). In the sixth count, Plaintiffs claim Defendants conspired to violate their constitutional rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
On July 22, 2005, Plaintiffs conceded the Secret Service was not a proper Defendant. Plaintiffs filed an Amended & Substituted Complaint ("First Amended Complaint"). The substance of the First Amended Complaint was the same as the substance of the original Complaint. The only difference was that Plaintiffs removed the Secret Service as a defendant and added Basham and Ridge as defendants.
On October 24, 2005, Defendants Basham and Ridge filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. On November 11, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance. On November 18, 2005, Basham and Ridge filed a Reply.
On December 22, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended & Substituted Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"). The only change made in the Second Amended Complaint is that the Second Amended Complaint names John Doe Secret Service Agent No. 1 and John Doe Secret Service Agent No. 2 as Kevin Walsh and Michael Parker, respectively.
On January 6, 2006, Basham and Ridge filed the instant Renewed Motion to Dismiss. On January 20, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Resistance. In the Renewed Motion to Dismiss and the Renewed Resistance, the parties make the same arguments as they did in the October 24, 2005 Motion to Dismiss and the November 11, 2005 Resistance. The only difference is that the Renewed Motion to Dismiss and the Renewed Resistance reflect the fact that Plaintiffs named Walsh and Parker in the Second Amended Complaint.
IV. ANALYSIS
Basham and Ridge seek dismissal from this case on four grounds.3 First, Basham and Ridge contend Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over them. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Second, Basham and Ridge claim they are entitled to qualified immunity, and, therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Third, Basham and Ridge maintain that Plaintiffs' claims under the Iowa Constitution should be dismissed because such claims are subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1), and Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Fourth, Basham and Ridge ask the court to dismiss the conspiracy claim because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Basham and Ridge participated in an agreement to violate Plaintiffs' civil rights. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To the extent necessary, the court considers these arguments in turn.
Basham and Ridge contend the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over them would not comport with due process. They ask the court to dismiss them from the lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
"A federal court may assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant only to the extent permitted by the forum state's long-arm statute and by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution." Ferrell v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 393 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir.2005) (citing Dakota Indus. v. Ever Best Ltd., 28 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1994)). Iowa's long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction over non-residents to the fullest extent permissible under the Due Process Clause. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.306; see also Hicklin Eng'g, Inc. v. Aidco, Inc., 959 F.2d 738, 739 (8th Cir.1992) (recognizing same); Hammond v. Fla. Asset Fin. Corp., 695 N.W.2d 1, 5 (same); Roquette Am., Inc. v. Gerber, 651 N.W.2d 896, 899 (Iowa Ct.App.2002) (). Therefore, the court shall only examine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Hicklin, 959 F.2d at 739.
The Supreme Court has distinguished between two types of personal jurisdiction: specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall 466 U.S. 408, 414...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Kerkhoff
...process principles embedded in the federal constitution. Hammond v. Fla. Asset Fin. Corp., 695 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2005); see McCabe v. Basham, 450 F.Supp.2d 916, 922 (N.D.Towa 2006); Wright v. City of Las Vegas, 395 F.Supp.2d 789, 801 (S.D.Iowa 2005). As a result, the Court is left with the ......
-
Munns v. Clinton
...those policies are allegedly felt.” Motion, 6:11–16 ( citing Hill v. Pugh, 75 Fed.Appx. 715, 719 (10th Cir.2003); McCabe v. Basham, 450 F.Supp.2d 916, 926–27 (N.D.Iowa 2006); Wag–Aero, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.Supp. 1479, 1485 (E.D.Wis.1993); Vu v. Meese, 755 F.Supp. 1375, 1378 (E.D.La.......
-
Munns v. Clinton
...policies are allegedly felt." Motion, 6:11-16 (citing Hill v. Pugh, 75 Fed. Appx. 715, 719 (10th Cir. 2003); McCabe v. Basham, 450 F. Supp. 2d 916, 926-27 (N.D. Iowa 2006); Wag-aero, Inc. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 1479, 1485 (E.D. Wis. 1993); Vu v. Meese, 755 F. Supp. 1375, 1378 (E.D. ......
-
Freedom Path, Inc. v. Lerner
...country have recognized that personal jurisdiction cannot be premised solely on a defendant's supervisory status." McCabe v. Basham, 450 F.Supp.2d 916, 926 (N.D. Iowa 2006) (collecting cases); see also Michalik v. Hermann, 2001 WL 434489, at *3 (E.D. La.Apr. 26, 2001) (quoting Nwanze v. Phi......