McRoberts v. Rosas
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-2470-DDC-TJJ |
| Parties | SHAUNA MCROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. KENDRICK ROSAS, DYLAN HAWKINS, and PETE GLASSER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
SHAUNA MCROBERTS, Plaintiff,
v.
KENDRICK ROSAS, DYLAN HAWKINS, and PETE GLASSER, Defendants.
No. 21-2470-DDC-TJJ
United States District Court, D. Kansas
September 27, 2022
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge
Pro se plaintiff Shauna McRoberts[1] brings this action against Overland Park Police Department Officers Kendrick Rosas and Dylan Hawkins and Johnson County, Kansas Assistant District Attorney Pete Glasser. See generally Doc. 54 (First Am. Compl.). She claims civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an allegedly unlawful arrest and detention. Id. Defendants Rosas and Hawkins have filed a Motion to Dismiss, asking the court to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failing to state a plausible claim. Doc. 60. Defendant Glasser also has filed a Motion to Dismiss, asking the court to
dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).[2] Doc. 62. For reasons explained below, the court grants both motions.
I. Factual Background
The following facts come from plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 54).[3] The court accepts them as true and views them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Doe v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 970 F.3d 1300, 1304 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining that on a motion to dismiss the court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view[s] them in the light most favorable to” plaintiff (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
On September 15, 2018, around 11:15 p.m., plaintiff encountered her sister outside of her parents' home. Doc. 54 at 5-6 (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 21). Her sister's contact with plaintiff
violated a no-contact order. Id. Plaintiff asserts that she secured the court-ordered no-contact order to protect her from abuse or harassment while her sister faced felony identity theft charges for using plaintiff's identity. Doc. 54 at 5-6 (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-16, 21). Id.
Plaintiff spoke calmly with her sister on the street, but “suddenly and with no provocation at all,” her sister pinned plaintiff in her vehicle, gunned the accelerator, and dragged her down the street. Id. at 6 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 22). Her sister eventually released plaintiff by opening the car door, causing plaintiff's body to fall free. Id. And then, her sister fled in the vehicle. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 23).
Plaintiff asserts that she never touched or had any physical contact with her sister. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 24). After her sister fled, plaintiff ran into her parents' house and plaintiff's step-father called 911. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 25). Overland Park Police Department Officer Kendrick Rosas arrived at the house around 11:20 p.m. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 26). Plaintiff told Officer Rosas about the events that just had transpired and answered his follow-up questions. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 27). Officer Rosas arrested plaintiff's sister for aggravated domestic battery shortly after the incident. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 29).
An ambulance then transported plaintiff to Overland Park Regional Hospital where she was admitted to the Emergency Room at 12:17 a.m. on September 16, 2018. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 28). Plaintiff had a CT scan and several X-rays. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 30). She had abrasions on her scalp, right shoulder, right elbow, right thigh, right foot, left thumb, and left big toe. Id. Medical personnel treated plaintiff for road rash, prescribed her medication, and gave her instructions about wound care. Id. at 7 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 32). At 2:32 a.m. on September 16, 2018, the hospital discharged plaintiff. Id.
When she was at the hospital, Officer Rosas again questioned plaintiff. Id. at 6 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 31). Plaintiff again told Officer Rosas exactly how the incident with her sister had occurred and answered all his follow-up questions. Id.
At 6:48 a.m. on September 16, 2018, Officer Rosas called plaintiff and asked her to come to the police station to sign a Notice to Appear. Id. at 7 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 33). Later that day, around 12:40 p.m., plaintiff arrived at the police station. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 34). Plaintiff asserts that she had “obvious and apparent” injuries and was “in an extreme amount of pain.” Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 35). Plaintiff waited in a public waiting area until Officer Hawkins met her there around 1:00 p.m. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 36).
Plaintiff alleges on “information and belief” that Officer Rosas dispatched or directed Officer Hawkins to the police station to arrest plaintiff. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 37). Officer Hawkins told plaintiff that he was arresting her for misdemeanor domestic battery. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 40). Officer Hawkins asked plaintiff to stand up, took her purse, and then handcuffed her hands behind her back. Id. Plaintiff asserts that no probable cause existed to arrest her on September 16, 2018. Id. at 8 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 44). Plaintiff also alleges that she never made physical contact with her sister and that her sister attacked her without provocation. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 42). Plaintiff was in shock, felt terrified and desperate, and found her public arrest embarrassing, stressful, and humiliating. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 43).
After plaintiff's arrest, Officer Hawkins transported her in his police car to the Johnson County Detention Center in Olathe, Kansas. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 48). Officer Hawkins refused to tell plaintiff why he had arrested her, despite repeated inquiries. Id. at 8-9 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 49). At 1:47 p.m. on September 16, 2018, plaintiff was booked into the Detention Center. Id. at 9 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 55). Plaintiff was scheduled to appear before a Johnson
County District Court judge at 1:30 p.m. on September 17, 2018. Id. at 10 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 62). But, shortly before her scheduled hearing, plaintiff was released from the Detention Center at 12:49 p.m. on September 17, 2018, without explanation and without seeing a judge. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 63).
Plaintiff alleges that Assistant District Attorney Pete Glasser declined to prosecute her and ordered her release on September 17, 2018. Id. at 11 (First Am. Compl. ¶ 64). Before plaintiff's release from the Detention Center, she had spent almost 24 hours in custody. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 65). Plaintiff alleges that ADA Glasser also declined to prosecute her sister, who was arrested for felony domestic battery. Id. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 71).
II. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 18, 2021. Doc. 1. Her original Complaint asserted various § 1983 and Kansas tort claims against Officers Rosas and Hawkins and ADA Glasser, as well as several other defendants. Id. at 16-28, 30-36 (Compl. ¶¶ 70-167, 178-227).
On January 10, 2022, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Doc. 54. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserts three claims against three defendants: (1) a § 1983 claim asserting false arrest and imprisonment violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against Officers Rosas and Hawkins in their individual capacities (Count I) (Doc. 54 at 2, 16-18 (First. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, 98-118)); (2) a § 1983 claim asserting abuse of process violating the Fourteenth Amendment against ADA Glasser in his individual capacity (Count II) (Doc. 54 at 2, 18-23 (First. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 119-151)); and (3) a § 1983 claim for asserting denial of substantive due process violating the Fourteenth Amendment against Officers Rosas and Hawkins and ADA Glasser in their individual capacities (Count III) (Doc. 54 at 2, 23-26 (First. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-4, 152 164)).
Plaintiff seeks actual, nominal, and punitive damages, as well as her attorney fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988[4] Id. at 26-27 (First Am. Compl. Prayer for Relief).
III. Legal Standard
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) allows a party to move the court to dismiss an action for failing “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the pleading “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are true, but it is “‘not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). And while this pleading standard doesn't require “‘detailed factual allegations,'” it demands more than a “pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'” which, as the Supreme Court explained, “‘will not do.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
IV. Analysis
Defendants assert several arguments supporting dismissal of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court addresses each argument, in turn, below. As explained, the arguments provide separate and independent reasons to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
A. The statute of limitations bars plaintiff's § 1983 claims against all three defendants.
All three defendants assert that the statute of limitations bars plaintiff's § 1983 claims. The statute limiting § 1983 claims “is drawn from the personal-injury statute of the state in which the federal district court sits.” Mondragon v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial