Johnson v. Wright, et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by City of Clanton as further set out in order. Signed by Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/7/05. (Attachments: # 1 appeals checklist)(vmc, )
Johnson v. Wright, et al.
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F OR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E RN DIVISION TH OM AS JOHNSON, PL AI NT IFF , v. CIT Y OF CLANTON, ALABAM A, et al., DEFEND ANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 2:04-cv-117-MEF WO
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER In February of 2004, Plaintiff Thomas Johnson brought this suit against the City of C l a n t o n , Alabama and numerous other defendants. Plaintiff's allegations against all
defe ndan ts arise out of an alleged incident between Plaintiff and certain law enforcement officers on May 25, 2002, which began outside a bar in Clanton, Alabama. It is alleged that t w o law enforcement officers for the City of Clanton improperly arrested Plaintiff and used e x c e s s iv e force against him to effectuate the arrest. It is further alleged that these officers t h e n transported Plaintiff to the Chilton County Jail where he was further physically abused b y law enforcement, including Sheriff's Deputies for the Chilton County Sheriff's De par tme nt. This cause is presently before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss the Amended C o m p l a i n t (Doc. # 33) filed by Defendant City of Clanton, Alabama on May 12, 2004. The Cou rt has reviewed the argument in support of and in opposition to this motion. The Court find s that the motion is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Page 2 of 3
D e f e n d a n t the City of Clanton, Alabama contends that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against it for which relief can be granted for alleged violations of the Fifth a n d Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff Thomas Johnson r e s p o n d s by explaining that there are no claims plead against the City of Clanton, Alabama f o r alleged violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States C o n s t i tu t i o n and by clarifying that the only claim against the City of Clanton, Alabama he b r i n g s pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment to the U n i t e d States Constitution. To the extent that the Amended Complaint could be read to state c la im s against the City of Clanton, Alabama for alleged violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Am endm ents to the United States Constitution, such claims are due to be DISMISSED. To t h e extent that the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33) filed by Defendant City of Clanton, Alabama seeks dismissal of claims against the City of Clanton, Alabama for a l l eg e d violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, it is GRANTED. This ruling has no effect on any claim against the City of Clanton, A l ab a m a for alleged violations of rights established by the Fourth Amendment to the United Sta tes Constitution. While the sole claims in this case against the City of Clanton, Alabama are claims a r i si n g under federal law, Plaintiff Thomas Johnson has brought claims pursuant to Alabama l a w against some of the other defendants in this action. In its Motion to Dismiss the A m e n d e d Complaint (Doc. # 33), the City of Clanton, Alabama argues that this Court should
Page 3 of 3
d e c l in e to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims against the other defe ndan ts in this action pursuant to Alabama law. The City of Clanton, Alabama, for und erstan dable reasons prefers not to have the claims against it tried in the same action as t h e tort claims against the other defendants. Having considered the factors relevant to the determ inatio n of whether this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court finds it is appropriate for it to exercise its discretion to hear all t h e claims together in one action. Accordingly, Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint ( D o c . # 33) is DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of claims brought pursuant to Ala bam a law. It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. # 3 3 ) filed by Defendant City of Clanton, Alabama is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above. DONE this the 7 th day of June, 2005.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?