Crawford v. Branch et al

Filing 9

ORDER On Defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss. Third claim for relief of the first amended complaint is dismissed because of the bar of the applicable statute of limitation. Motion to dismiss is denied as to the claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment made applicable under the Fourteenth Amendment. The first and second claims for relief of the amended complaint are merged. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 7/2/2009.(rpmcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge Civil Action No. 08-cv-02384-RPM STEPHANIE JEAN CRAWFORD, Plaintiff, v. DANE BRANCH, an Officer with the Colorado State Patrol, in his individual capacity, and JANE DOE, an unknown dispatcher with the Colorado State patrol, in her individual capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS _____________________________________________________________________ The amended complaint in this civil action seeks recovery under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution based on factual allegations of an arrest made on mistaken identity of the plaintiff as the person named in a valid arrest warrant. The plaintiff also has a third claim for relief for tort claims of false imprisonment and negligence. The defendant on June 5, 2009, filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiff filed her response on June 25, 2009. The plaintiff has separated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims in two claims for relief but that is mistaken. The Fourth Amendment becomes applicable to state officers as the result of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore there is one claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The tort claims are barred by the one year statute of limitations in C.R..S. 13-80-103(1), which is not applicable to the constitutional violation claim. It is now ORDERED that the third claim for relief of the first amended complaint is dismissed because of the bar of the applicable statute of limitations and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is denied as to the claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment made applicable under the Fourteenth Amendment. The first and second claims for relief of the amended complaint are merged. DATED: July 2nd, 2009 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch ________________________________ Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge 2

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?