Yanez v. Richardson et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Without Prejudice.Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to file an Amended Complaint. Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of this case.The hearing set in this case for April 18, 2013, is STRICKEN. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/15/13. (ss)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
AURORA LAUREL “LAURIE” YANEZ,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
TODD RICHARDSON, SHERIFF; DAVIS
COUNTY; DAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; DAVIS COUNTY
DIVISION; DAVIS COUNTY JAIL;
OFFICER WAITFIELD; and JOHN DOES IV
Case No. 1:12-CV-200 TS
This Motion is before the Court on Defendants Todd Richardson, Officer Wakefield,1
Davis County, Davis County Sheriff’s Department, Davis County Sheriff’s Office-Correction
Division, and Davis County Jail’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Although the Complaint was filed against an officer “Waitfield,” Defendants note that
the correct name is officer Wakefield.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 26, 2012, alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for deprivation of a liberty interest without due process of law, denial of the equal
protection of the law, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity.
In support of her claim, Plaintiff alleges that on August 12, 2010, Davis County
correctional officers locked her in a holding cell with ten to fifteen male inmates. The following
day, when Plaintiff filled out an inmate request and grievance form, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Wakefield retaliated against her by calling her a liar in front of several inmates. After
she had submitted the grievance form, Plaintiff alleges that she was “interrogated in a rude and
cavalier manner, [she] was charged with providing false information, accused of interfering with
an investigation, subjected to a room search, delayed in receiving mental health care, ridiculed,
made fun of and ignored, [and] generally . . . intimidated and mistreated.”2 As a result of this
treatment, Plaintiff alleges that she experienced “pain in [her] chest, shortness of breath, anxiety,
dizziness, loss of appetite, sleepiness, depression, headaches, loss of interest in normal day to day
activities, flashbacks, nightmares and disturbing dreams, and post-traumatic stress disorder.”3
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Rule 12(b)(6), all well-pleaded factual allegations, as distinguished from
conclusory allegations, are accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as
Docket No. 3, at 5.
the nonmoving party.4 Plaintiff must provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,”5 which requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully
harmed-me accusation.”6 “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”7 “The court’s function on
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potential evidence that the parties might present at trial,
but to assess whether the plaintiff’s complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for
which relief may be granted.”8 As the Court in Iqbal stated
only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will
. . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged—but it has not show[n]—that the pleader is entitled to
Although Plaintiff is currently represented by counsel, her complaint was handwritten and
appears to have been filed pro se. “A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and
GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (alteration in original).
Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991).
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations
held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”10 This means “that if
the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion
of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with
pleading requirements.”11 “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper
only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would
be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”12
CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS AND SUBORDINATE AGENCIES
Defendants argue that the Davis County Sheriff’s Office, the Davis County’s Sheriff’s
Office-Correction Division, and the Davis County Jail are subordinate agencies of Davis County
and not subject to suit. In her briefing, Plaintiff agrees and does not challenge Defendants’
Motion as to these parties.
Defendants further argues that no specific facts were alleged against Defendant
Richardson. Again, Plaintiff agrees, but requests that if the Court dismisses her claims against
Defendant Richardson, those claims should be dismissed without prejudice to her bringing
claims against him if her investigation reveals sufficient facts.
Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s only allegations against Defendant Wakefield are
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999).
that he called her a liar in front of several inmates, and that this allegation does not rise to the
level of a constitutional violation. Again, Plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of her claim
against Defendant Wakefield based on the allegations that he called her a liar.
Plaintiff does oppose dismissal of Defendant Wakefield for any involvement he had in
locking Plaintiff in a cell with male inmates. Plaintiff acknowledges that, if Defendant
Wakefield was involved in locking her in a holding cell with male inmates, and if he performed
these actions in his official capacity, her claims are against Davis County. However, to the
extent that those actions were not performed in his official capacity, Plaintiff opposes dismissal
of her claims against Defendant Wakefield in his individual capacity.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting a claim that
Defendant Wakefield was in any way involved in locking her in the holding cell. As Plaintiff has
not alleged sufficient facts against Defendant Wakefield to support this claim, the Court will
dismiss her claims against Defendant Wakefield without prejudice to her bringing claims against
him if her investigation reveals sufficient facts.
Defendants also argue that, “regardless of the constitutional provisions cited by Plaintiffs,
the ‘explicit textual source of constitutional protection,’ for those incarcerated is the Eighth
Amendment.”13 Therefore, any surviving claims of Plaintiff must be analyzed under the Eight
Amendment. Once again, Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants argument, and agrees that “the
parties’ focus should be on whether whatever happened to her in the Davis County Jail
Docket No. 6, at 7 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)).
constituted cruel or unusual punishment or did not.”14
As a result, “Plaintiff does not oppose dismissing out all Defendants except Davis County
and agrees that the court may limit Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 to the confines of the Eight
CLAIMS AGAINST DAVIS COUNTY
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.”16 The Supreme Court has limited the
liability of municipalities under § 1983, stating that “a municipality cannot be held liable solely
because it employs a tortfeasor—or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under §
1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”17 “Instead . . . [the Court has] required a plaintiff seeking
to impose liability on a municipality to identify a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the
A policy can be based on the decisions of “officials whose acts may fairly be said to be
those of the municipality.”19 However, it is not enough to identify conduct properly attributable
Docket No. 12, at 6-7.
Id. at 7.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299,
Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).
Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).
Id. at 403-04.
to the municipality.20 “The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct,
the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show
that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate
a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.”21
Plaintiff has not alleged any Davis County policy or custom that was the moving force
behind her alleged mistreatment. In fact, Plaintiff argues that locking her in a cell with male
inmates was against policy. She argues that the fact that it was against policy is what prompted
Officer Wakefield to call Plaintiff a liar when she reported a grievance. Plaintiff argues that the
Defendants cannot have it both ways, either the officers who locked her in a cell were acting
pursuant to a county policy and she has a claim against the county, or they were acting against
policy and she has a claim against those officers in their individual capacities. However, Plaintiff
has not made specific allegations against any officer for locking her in the cell, and she has
agreed to dismiss all individuals without prejudice. The only allegations against specific officers
are made against Defendant Wakefield for calling her a liar.
As Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to support a claim against
Davis County, and as Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of her claims against the remaining
Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
Id. at 404.
The Court notes that although Plaintiff is now represented by counsel, Plaintiff appears to
have filed her Complaint pro se. Under these circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to
give Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint to correct the deficiencies noted above.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to file an
Amended Complaint. Failure to file an Amended Complaint will result in dismissal of this case.
It is further
ORDERED that the hearing set in this case for April 18, 2013, is STRICKEN.
DATED April 15, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.