United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) filed by Defendants Jay
Jones, the Sheriff of Lee County, Alabama, Richard Zayas,
Deputy Sheriff of Lee County, and Corey Welch, the Assistant
Administrator of the Lee County Jail. This matter has been
referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
“for further proceedings and determination or
recommendation as may be appropriate.” Doc. 27. On May
1, 2018, the undersigned entered an Order (Doc. 34) directing
Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' motion on or
before May 18, 2018. Plaintiff has not filed a response to
the motion.[1] For the reasons that follow, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Defendants'
motion be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
This
case has a lengthy procedural history that was aptly
summarized by the District Judge as follows:
Although this action was removed to this court in August of
2017, it has been pending since May of 2015, when Plaintiff
originally filed his complaint in the Circuit Court of Lee
County, Alabama. See Doc. 1-1. Plaintiff sued Lee
County, Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones, Sheriff's Deputies
Richard Zayas and Robert Alexander, and a number of
fictitious parties. Doc. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff alleged
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, as well as several state law tort claims.
Id. Over the following two years, discovery and
motions practice ensued and additional complaints were filed.
Of pertinence to today's Order are the following state
court developments: Plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint on September 29, 2015 (Doc. 1-2); the Circuit Court
granted-in-part and denied-in-part the motions to dismiss
filed by the defendants named in the First Amended Complaint
on April 4, 2016, specifically declining to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims against Lee County and Defendants
Zayas and Jones in their individual capacities (Doc. 1-11 at
150-54); Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint to Add Additional Parties, namely Defendant
Corey Welch, on June 29, 2017 (Doc. 1-11 at 265-66); the
Circuit Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint on June 30,
2017, and instructed Plaintiff both to file the Second
Amended Complaint on or before July 15, 2017, and to file, on
or before July 21, 2017, another motion to compel to address
purportedly inadequate discovery responses from Defendants
(Doc. 1-11 at 268); Defendant Lee County filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment on July 10, 2017 (Doc. 1-9); Plaintiff filed
his Second Amended Complaint on July 14, 2017 (Doc. 1-4);
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Accept Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel on July 22, 2017 (Doc. 1-10); and Defendants
filed their “Objection to the Second Amended
Complaint” on August 1, 2017, in which Defendants
asserted that Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Welch
is time-barred (Doc. 1-11 at 496-97). On August 11, 2017,
Defendant Welch filed his Notice of Removal of the action in
this court. Doc. 1.
On August 17, 2017, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, arguing that Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief could
be granted under the Federal Rules' standard of pleading,
as explicated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). See Docs. 14 at 4-12 & 16 at 4-8. On
August 23, 2017, the court entered an Order (Doc. 17)
instructing Plaintiff that, should he elect not to seek a
timely remand of the matter to the state court, then he must
file a written response and show cause why Defendants'
motions to dismiss should not be granted on or before
September 18, 2017. On that date, however, Plaintiff filed
his Opposition to Defendant's Removal and Motion to
Remand (Doc. 21). On September 19, 2017, Defendants filed
their Response (Doc. 22) in opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand, in which they argued that Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand is untimely and without merit. Also on
September 19, 2017, the court entered an Order (Doc. 23)
directing Plaintiff to reply to Defendants' response and,
particularly, to address Defendants' timeliness argument.
Thereafter, on September 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Reply
(Doc. 24), in which he argued that Defendant Welch failed to
comply with the statutory requirements of removal, and thus
failed to timely perfect the removal, and further asserted
that his Motion to Remand was timely filed because he was
never properly served with notice of the removal and,
furthermore, the improper service he was afforded was not
made until August 17, 2017. Finally, on September 29, 2017,
Defendants filed their Reply (Doc. 25) to Plaintiff's
reply, in which they argue that the removal was procedurally
proper and timely perfected, notwithstanding any purported
defects highlighted by Plaintiff.
Doc. 28 at 2-3. Against that backdrop, the District Judge
ultimately denied Plaintiff's motion to remand, granted
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to conform to
federal pleading standards, and, in pertinent part, denied,
without prejudice, the individual Defendants' motion to
dismiss the previous iteration of Plaintiff's complaint
subject to their renewal of the motion, if appropriate, after
Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint. See Id.
at 16-17.
Plaintiff
filed his Third Amended Complaint on April 13, 2018, and
Defendants subsequently filed the instant motion seeking
dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) alleges, in the
“Facts” section, that he suffered two instances
of “overdetention” in the Lee County Jail. His
allegations respecting the first instance, in pertinent part,
are as follows: a) the “Lee County Jail allows
investigators or law enforcement to place holds, without a
warrant, on individuals in the Lee County Jail[, ]” and
that the Lee County Sheriff's Department “has a
policy that allows for an inmate that is to be processed for
release to be detained beyond the release date . . . at the
request of an investigator and/or law enforcement”
without a warrant (¶¶ 16-18); that Defendants
Jones, Zayas, and Welch have “a policy, pattern and
practice of incarcerating [Plaintiff] longer than legally
authorized (¶ 20); that all “booking and releases
of individuals from the Lee County Jail are performed
electronically” (¶ 22); that Plaintiff was
arrested, without an arrest warrant, on May 24, 2013, and was
detained at the Lee County Jail (¶¶ 23-24); that on
May 25, 2013, he obtained a bond from a bonding company and
was due to be released on that date according to Lee
County's electronic case management system (¶¶
25-28); that, instead, Plaintiff was released from detention
on May 29, 2013 (¶ 30); that Plaintiff was held for the
additional number of days due to a “hold” that
was placed by some law enforcement officer or investigator
(¶ 32); that Plaintiff “informed officers on
several occasions that he should not be held since he had
posted bond” (¶ 33); that Plaintiff
“complained to Defendant Zayas” about his
purported overdetention, but that Defendant Zayas
“refused to address [Plaintiff's] concern about
being overdetained, and instead informed [Plaintiff] he would
have a 72 hour investigatory hold” (¶ 34); and
that, eventually, “Lee County Jail Staff removed the
hold” from the County's case management system, and
Plaintiff was released on May 29, 2013 (¶ 35).
Plaintiff's
allegations respecting the second overdetention are as
follows: a) on August 23, 2013, Plaintiff was taken into
custody and detained at the Lee County Jail “due to
child support arrearage” (¶ 39); on October 18,
2013, Plaintiff's mother satisfied his arrearage and a
judge ordered Plaintiff released from custody (¶¶
40-41); that the order of release was faxed or emailed
“to an email established specifically for orders of
committal and orders of release” (¶ 42); that,
although Lee County's case management system indicated
that Plaintiff was due to be released on October 18, 2013, he
was not released until October 22, 2013 (¶¶ 43-44);
and that “[w]hen [Plaintiff] complained of being held
after an order for [h]is release, he was told by personnel
that he was being held on a 72 hour hold” (¶ 46).
Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint presents four claims: “Count
Six, ”[2] in which Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, that Lee County violated his
constitutional rights (¶¶ 59-70); “Count
Seven, ” in which Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to state
law, that Lee County was negligent in its failure to
adequately maintain equipment and systems at the jail
(¶¶ 71-75); “Count Eight, ” in which
Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to § 1983, that Defendants
Jones, Zayas, and Welch violated his constitutional rights,
under color of state law, by detaining him “without
legal probable cause” in the circumstances described
above (¶¶ 76-94); and “Count Nine, ” in
which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Welch is liable,
pursuant to state law, for false imprisonment due to the two
instances of overdetention described in the Third Amended
Complaint (¶¶ 95-104). Because Plaintiff has
voluntarily dismissed Lee County from this lawsuit, and the
instant motion therefore only concerns Plaintiff's claims
against the individual Defendants, this Recommendation will
address only the defenses raised regarding “Claim
Eight” and “Claim Nine.”
III.
DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS
Defendants
present a number of bases for concluding that Plaintiff has
failed to state any claim for which relief could be granted,
which they helpfully summarize as follows:
Defendant Welch, who has only been recently added as a
defendant, moves for dismissal based upon the statute of
limitations and, to the extent necessary, Ala. Code ยง
14-6-1. All Defendants move for dismissal on the basis of
qualified immunity. Additionally, Defendants move for
dismissal of equitable claims, ...