Smith v. City of Sumiton
| Decision Date | 07 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 6:12-cv-03521-RDP |
| Parties | MARY KRISTINA SMITH, and any others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SUMITON; SUMITON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SUMITON JAIL; T.J. BURNETT; CHRIS DAUGHERTY, ESTATE OF CHRIS DAUGHERTY, FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A, B, and C, those officers or employees of the City of Sumiton involved in Constitutional Violations, Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama |
Before the court is Defendants Police Chief T.J. Burnett ("Burnett") and City of Sumiton Alabama's ("City") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6), filed on October 31, 2012. Defendants filed a brief supporting their motion (Doc. #6-1) and Plaintiff responded on November 8, 2012. (Doc. #12). Defendants did not file a reply. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion (Doc. #6) is due to be granted in part and denied in part.1
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint on October 4, 2012. (Doc. #1). Plaintiff's Complaint contains five counts to relief against Defendants. (See Doc. #1). Plaintiff asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Count One); state law invasion of privacy claims (Count Two); state law assault and battery claims (Count Three); state law outrage claims (Count Four); and state law negligent retention, negligent training, and negligent supervision claims (Count Five). (See Doc. #1).
The facts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint are as follows. Sometime in October 2010, a Sumiton police officer arrested Plaintiff for unpaid traffic violations and took her to the City of Sumiton Jail. (Doc. #1 at ¶ 13). Plaintiff remained in the jail overnight. (Id. at ¶ 14). During the first night she was incarcerated, Defendant Chris Daugherty "threatened her, made verbal sexual threats and forced [her] to perform unwanted sex acts on him and sexually harassed her, sexually assaulted her and sexually abused her." (Id.). Plaintiff "had no choice but to be subjected to the unwanted sexual acts against her" because of the verbal and physical threats made against her, the assault and battery, and the position of power asserted by Defendant Daugherty. (Id. at ¶ 15).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Having said that, the complaint must include enough facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pleadings that contain nothing more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" do not meetRule 8 standards, nor do pleadings suffice that are based merely upon "labels and conclusions" or "naked assertion[s]" without supporting factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts view the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although "[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,'" the complaint must demonstrate "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A plausible claim for relief requires "enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" to support the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
The Supreme Court has recently identified "two working principles" for a district court to use in applying the facial plausibility standard. First, in evaluating motions to dismiss, the court must assume the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations; however, the court does not have to accept as true legal conclusions when they are "couched as [] factual allegation[s]." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Second, "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. Application of the facial plausibility standard involves two steps. Under prong one, the court must determine the scope and nature of the factual allegations that are well-pleaded and assume their veracity; and under prong two, the court must proceed to determine the claim's plausibility given the well-pleaded facts. That task is context specific and, to survive the motion,the allegations must permit the court based on its "judicial experience and common sense . . . to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. If the court determines that well-pleaded facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim that is plausible, the claims are due to be dismissed. Id.
Plaintiff's "official capacity" section 1983 claims against Defendant Burnett are due to be dismissed because these claims are claims against the City of Sumiton itself. "[O]fficial capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against the entity of which an officer is an agent." Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 472 n. 21 (1985). Suits against an individual acting in his official capacity impose liability on the governmental entity the official represents. See Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 1991) (). Because Plaintiff's official capacity section 1983 claims against Defendant Burnett are claims against the City of Sumiton, they are due to be dismissed. However, with the exception of any Eighth Amendment claims,2 Plaintiff's individual capacity section 1983claims are not due to be dismissed on the pleadings.
Suits against municipal officials in their individual capacities are claims against the officials themselves as relief is sought from the person, not the governmental entity he represents. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Accordingly, Defendant Burnett is a "person" subject to suit under section 1983, when sued in his individual capacity. See Toth v. City of Dothan, 953 F. Supp. 1502, 1507 (M.D. Ala. 1996) ().
"It is well established in this Circuit that supervisory officials are not liable under [section] 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability." Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999)). However, supervisory liability under section 1983 may occur "'when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the actions of the supervising official and the alleged deprivation.'" Valdes v. Crosby, 450 F.3d 1231, 1236 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Miller v. King, 384 F. 3d 1248, 1261 (11th Cir. 2004)). Based on the pleadings, there is no allegation that Defendant Burnett personally participated in any alleged sexual assault of Plaintiff while she was in the City of Sumiton Jail. In fact, Plaintiff's Complaint pleads no facts suggesting Defendant Burnett was even aware that Plaintiff has been arrested or was in custody. (See Doc. #1 at ¶¶ 13-15). The question then is whether there is a sufficient causal connection between Defendant Burnett's action or inaction and Defendant Daugherty's alleged sexual assault.
A causal connection may be established when: 1) a "history of widespread abuse" puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he or she fails to do so; 2) a supervisor's custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights; or 3) facts support an inference that the supervisor directed subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, the court must accept as true Plaintiff's well-plead allegations and, in light of that, it would be inappropriate to dismiss Plaintiff's supervisory liability section 1983 claims against Defendant Burnett.
Although not stated under the "Facts" heading, Plaintiff does allege that Defendant Burnett was "aware of previous misconduct of Defendant Daugherty, but failed to correct those actions." (Doc. #1 at ¶ 23). Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Burnett "had knowledge of these acts and the potential for this kind of action taken by Defendant Daugherty based upon previous similar acts he had committed." (Id. at ¶ 24). At this stage, these allegations may support a finding that Defendant Burnett was aware of Defendant Daugherty's previous alleged misconduct such that Defendant Burnett was on notice of the alleged constitutional violations. Plaintiff has also alleged facts that could support an inference that Defendant Burnett knew that Defendant Daugherty would act unlawfully but failed to intervene or was deliberately indifferent. See Bd of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty, Okla v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial