Berry v. Davis et al
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's claims against Separate Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Brandon Davis, individually, and the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, remain. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on June 3, 2013. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CONNIE BERRY, Individually
and as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF ERIC W. BERRY
Case No. 12-2269
BRANDON DAVIS, Individually;
THE CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS;
THE CITY OF FORT SMITH BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; and THE CITY OF FORT
SMITH, ARKANSAS POLICE DEPARTMENT
supporting brief (docs. 17-18) filed by Separate Defendants The
City of Fort Smith Board of Directors and The City of Fort
Smith, Arkansas Police Department.
Separate Defendants contend
they were not involved in the death of Eric Berry and are not
entities capable of being sued and should be dismissed from this
Further, that the naming of these Separate Defendants is
superfluous as the City of Fort Smith is a defendant.
failed to file a timely response to the motion.
The Eighth Circuit has held that dismissal of a police
department is proper in a § 1983 action because a police
department is only a “subdivision of the City” and, therefore,
not a “jurisdictional [entity] suable as such.”
Ketchum v. City
of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992).
the motion (doc. 17) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against
Separate Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
claims against Brandon Davis, individually, and the City of Fort
Smith, Arkansas, remain.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June 2013.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
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?