Grant-Brown et al v. Tinker
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to amend, (doc. 27), is GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file the proposed amended complaint by September 25, 2017. Defendant Tinker will then have fourteen days from the date the amended complaint is filed to respond thereto. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERM Defendant Tinkers motion to dismiss (doc. 16) as MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge John H England, III on 9/22/2017. (KEK)
2017 Sep-22 AM 09:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CYNTHIA GRANT, et al.,
DETECTIVE J. TINKER,
Case Number: 2:17-cv-00222-JHE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
Plaintiffs Cynthia Grant and Nikela Brown initiated this action against Defendant Detective
J. Tinker alleging claims based on denial of due process, unlawful search and seizure, false arrest
and false imprisonment, and deliberate indifference. (Doc. 1). Defendant Tinker moved to dismiss
some of the plaintiffs’ claims. (Doc. 16). Pointing out it was unclear whether the claims were
against him in his individual or official capacity, Defendant Tinker specifically sought to dismiss
claims 1 (denial of due process) and 4 (deliberate indifference) on the grounds they were subsumed
by or duplicative of claim 2 (unlawful search and seizure) and to dismiss claim 3 (false arrest and
false imprisonment) based on absolute immunity under the Alabama Constitution. (Id.). In
response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed two documents: a response in opposition to the
motion to dismiss, wherein they seek to remedy Defendant Tinker’s issues with the complaint
(doc. 26), and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 27).
Plaintiffs’ proposed first amended complaint indicates the following Fourth Amendment
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 73, the parties have voluntarily consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge
conduct any and all proceedings, including trial and the entry of final judgment. (Doc. 22).
claims are brought against Defendant Tinker, in his individual capacity only, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (1) wrongful arrest; (2) unlawful search and seizure; and (3) false imprisonment. (Doc.
27). Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint addresses the issues outlined in Defendant Tinker’s
motion to dismiss. First, Plaintiffs clarify that Defendant Tinker is being sued in his individual
capacity (not his official capacity), and, therefore, he is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity from claims for money damages. (Doc. 26 at 1-2) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21,
31 (1991)). Additionally, to the extent Defendant Tinker argues Count 1 and 4 were duplicative
of Count 2, Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint consolidates and clarifies these causes of
action. (See docs. 26, 27, & 27-1). Finally, Defendant Tinker’s argument regarding absolute
immunity for the state law false arrest and false imprisonment claim is rendered moot, as Plaintiffs
proposed amended complaint asserts a Fourth Amendment false imprisonment claim pursuant to
§1983 against Defendant Tinker in his individual capacity. (Doc. 26 at 4, doc. 27-1) (citing
Anderson v. City of Homewood, No. 2:16-cv-439-TMP, 2016 WL 7438895, at *25-26 (N.D. Ala.
Dec. 27, 2016)).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, (doc. 27), is GRANTED.
DIRECTED to file the proposed amended complaint by September 25, 2017. Defendant Tinker
will then have fourteen days from the date the amended complaint is filed to respond thereto. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to TERM Defendant Tinker’s motion to dismiss (doc. 16) as MOOT.
DONE this 22nd day of September, 2017.
JOHN H. ENGLAND, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?