Youngblood v. Qualls

• Decision Date: 06 April 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:17–CV–02180–JAR–GEB
• Citation: 308 F.Supp.3d 1184
• Parties: Guy L. YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff, v. Rex QUALLS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

308 F.Supp.3d 1184

Guy L. YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff,

v.Rex QUALLS, Defendant.

Case No. 2:17–CV–02180–JAR–GEB

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Signed April 6, 2018

Robert Vinson Eye, Robert V. Eye Law Office, LLC, Lawrence, KS, for Plaintiff.

Tracy M. Hayes, Sanders Warren Russell & Scheer LLP, Overland Park, KS, for Defendant.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM & ORDER

JULIE A. ROBINSON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Guy Youngblood brings this action against Defendant Rex Qualls, a former police officer for the City of Baxter Springs, Kansas, in his personal capacity only, seeking monetary damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Kansas Tort Claims Act, K.S.A. § 75–6101, et seq. , for Defendant's alleged violation of Plaintiff's First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as his rights under Articles 11 and 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights. Plaintiff contends that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear his state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b). Before the Court are two motions—Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 12). Having considered the parties' briefing, the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is denied as futile.¹

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Guy Youngblood alleges that on July 1, 2015, he was mowing his front lawn when he was approached by Defendant Rex Qualls, who was then a police officer employed by the City of Baxter Springs, Kansas. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's presence at his home was instigated by animosity between Plaintiff and Randall Trease, the mayor of Baxter Springs, who lives across the street from Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant informed him that he was violating a municipal ordinance by discharging grass clippings into the street. Plaintiff states that in response to this comment, he turned toward the mayor's residence and, "while in the ... close proximity of Defendant Qualls .... raise[d] his right arm, extend[ed] the middle finger of his right hand and state[d] in a loud voice, ‘F*** that mother*****.’ "² Plaintiff alleges that Defendant then "with no warning to Plaintiff, forcefully grasped Plaintiff and threw him onto the street,"³ causing injuries to Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that Defendant then arrested him for disorderly conduct and transported him to the Cherokee County Jail, where he was held prior to posting bond and being released.

Plaintiff filed this action on March 29, 2017. His Complaint alleges four causes of action against Defendant in his personal capacity: (1) unreasonable seizure in violation of rights guaranteed under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) unreasonable interference with and retaliation for protected speech and conduct in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) unreasonable seizure in violation of rights guaranteed under Section 15 of the Kansas Bill of Rights; and (4) unjustified interference with and retaliation for Plaintiff's right to free speech under Section 11 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.⁴ Plaintiff alleges that his federal claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that his state-law claims arise under the Kansas Bill of Rights and the Kansas Tort Claims Act ("KTCA"), and that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to hear his state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.⁵

II. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain factual allegations that, assumed to be true, "raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and must include "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."⁶ Under this standard, "the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims."⁷ The plausibility standard does not require a showing of probability that "a defendant has acted unlawfully," but requires more than "a sheer possibility."⁸ "[M]ere ‘labels and conclusions,’ and ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action’ will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim."⁹ Finally, the court must accept the nonmoving party's factual allegations as true and may not dismiss on the ground that it appears unlikely the allegations can be proven.¹⁰

The Supreme Court has explained the analysis as a two-step process. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the court "must take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [but is] ‘not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’ "¹¹ Thus, the court must first determine if the allegations are factual and entitled to an assumption of truth, or merely legal conclusions that are not entitled to an assumption of truth.¹² Second, the court must determine whether the factual allegations, when assumed true, "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."¹³ "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."¹⁴

Plaintiff in this case filed a motion to amend his Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) after Defendant had moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to "allege service of notice of claim on the City of Baxter Springs, Kansas under K.S.A. 12–105b."¹⁵ Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 requires that leave to amend "be freely given when justice so requires," whether leave should be granted is within the trial court's discretion.¹⁶ The factors the Court should consider in determining whether to allow amendment of a pleading are undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the amendment.¹⁷ To justify denying leave to amend on the basis of futility, the proposed amendment must be clearly futile. "If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper."¹⁸ The court may deny a motion to amend as futile if the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss or otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.¹⁹

Finally, Plaintiff contends that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear his state-law claims in addition to his federal claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.SC. § 1331. " ‘[F]ederal courts have no jurisdiction without statutory authorization.’ "²⁰ However, § 1367(a) provides that:

Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution....

Thus, district courts having original jurisdiction to hear federal claims also have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where the plaintiff can demonstrate that "the claims not within the original jurisdiction of the court form part of the same ‘case or controversy under Article III’ as [his] federal claims."²¹ Federal and state claims arise from the same "case or controversy" where the "state and federal claims ... derive from a common nucleus of operative fact ...."²²

III. Analysis

On May 9, 2017, Defendant moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim in several respects. Defendant first argues that Plaintiff's Complaint does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) —which requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief—such that Defendant cannot determine what types of claims Plaintiff is asserting against him. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Complaint is internally inconsistent, alleging different types of claims in the "Nature of Action and Jurisdiction" section compared with the "Causes of Action" section. Specifically, Defendant notes that Plaintiff alleges that his arrest by Defendant was accomplished through the use of "excessive and unreasonable force" in the early paragraphs of the Complaint, but makes no claim for excessive use of force in the paragraphs that make up the "Causes of Action" portion of the Complaint. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff alleges no state-law tort claims under the Kansas Tort Claims Act in the "Causes of Action" section of his Complaint, but merely refers to the Kansas Bill of Rights as the source of his state-law claims. Defendant contends that these pleading inconsistencies result in a Complaint that "fails to give notice to Defendant Qualls what claims are being raised,"²³ and that this action must therefore be dismissed.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff's claims against him must be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Kansas Bill of Rights does not create a private right of action, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the KTCA's notice requirement, K.S.A. § 12–105b(d), prior to bringing suit for state-law tort claims. In his Response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff contends that qualified immunity is not available here, that he has cognizable claims under the Kansas Constitution, and that because Defendant's municipal employer is not a named defendant, the notice requirements of K.S.A. § 12–105b do not apply and he was not required to give notice to Defendant prior to filing suit. In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint to allege...