Hatten v. Codding et al
Filing
40
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 31 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. The motion is granted in that the Fort Myers Police Department is DISMISSED fro m this matter. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Plaintiff shall have until March 25, 2014, to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to timely file the second amended complaint will result in dismissal, without further notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/4/2014. (LMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JIMMY DURAND HATTEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:13-cv-680-FtM-38DNF
FORT MYERS POLICE
DEPARTMENT and JAMES
CODDING,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Alternative
Motion for a More Definite Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #31)
filed on January 9, 2014. Although given the opportunity, pro se Plaintiff Jimmy Durand
Hatten has not filed an objection. The motion is now ripe for review.
Background
Hatten initiated this matter in this court on September 23, 2013, by filing a
complaint against a John Doe defendant and the Fort Myers Police Department
(hereinafter “FMPD”). (Doc. #1). Thereafter, Hatten filed an Amended Complaint against
Defendants James Codding and FMPD on October 17, 2013. (Doc. #14, at 5). The
operative complaint alleges Hatten was walking on Cleveland Avenue (in Fort Myers,
1
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Florida) on July 3, 2011, when a Fort Myers Police Officer, Codding, pulled his police car
beside Hatten. (Doc. #14, at 5-6). During this time, Codding asked Hatten for his name.
(Doc. #14, at 6). Codding next moved away from the police car and then grabbed Hatten,
handcuffed Hatten,2 and searched Hatten. (Doc. #14, at 6). Thereafter, Codding took
Hatten to the FMPD facility and then to the city jail. (Doc. #14, at 6). Although “forcibly”
arrested, criminal charges were never filed against Hatten, Hatten was not brought before
a Court, and Hatten was in jail for no reasonable course. (Doc. #14, at 6). The Complaint
alleges FMPD is responsible for the incident even though Codding was the moving force
behind FMPD. (Doc. #14, at 8).3
The Complaint alleges Hatten was unlawfully and maliciously arrested and falsely
imprisoned. (Doc. #14, at 8, 9). The Complaint alleges Codding and FMPD abridged
Hatten of his civil rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution (Doc. #14, at 5). The Complaint indicates that individuals have a right to be
secure in their person, houses, papers, and from unreasonable searches and seizures.
(Doc. #14, at 12). In addition, the Complaint states the Eighth Amendment was violated
because excessive bail cannot be required, excessive fines cannot be imposed, and cruel
and unusual punishment cannot be inflicted. (Doc. #14, at 12). The Complaint also
indicates that there is a right to life liberty and security of person. (Doc. #14, at 12). Lastly,
the Complaint indicates no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment. (Doc. #14, at 12).
2
The Complaint alleges the handcuffs were too tight and that Hatten expressed this to the arresting officer.
(Doc. #14, at 6).
3 The Court interprets “moving faces” in the Amended Complaint to mean “moving forces.” (See Doc. #14,
at 8).
2
For relief, Hatten is seeking monetary damages, including punitive damages. (Doc.
#14, at 6-7, 9, 10). Hatten states he has been emotionally harmed and has suffered
mental
anguish,
mental
distress,
mental
suffering,
embarrassment,
anger,
disappointment, shame, humiliation, and fright. (Doc. #14, at 10). On January 9, 2014,
Codding and FMPD moved to dismiss this matter pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or in the alternative to require Hatten to file a more definite
statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #31).
Hatten has not filed a response in opposition.
Standard
When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and
take them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.
403, 406, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 153 L. Ed. 2d 413 (2002). Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, stating a claim upon which relief may be granted requires that enough
factual matter is pled to make relief plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556, 561–63, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (aboragating Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957)). Although detailed factual
allegations are not required, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the “grounds” of his
“entitlement” to relief requires more than labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the cause of action’s elements. Id. at 561–63. Thus, a complaint must state more than
an unadorned, “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Sinaltrainal v. CocaCola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
677, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)).
3
Additionally, unwarranted deductions of fact in a complaint are not admitted as true
for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the allegations. Id. (citing Aldana v. Del Monte
Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, the facts
as pled must state a claim for relief that is plausible on the face of the pleading. Id. (citing
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
Moreover, Rule 12(e) provides that “[a] party may move for a more definite
statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague
or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Therefore, when a defendant is faced with a complaint where it is “impossible to know
which allegations of fact are intended to support which claims(s) for relief,” a defendant
may turn to Rule 12(e) to require a plaintiff to file an amended pleading with a more
definite statement. Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Florida Community
College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Pleadings containing definite statements
permit a defendant to discern what a plaintiff is claiming, a defendant to frame a proper
responsive pleading, and a court to manage its docket with greater ease. Id. Even though
pro se pleadings are construed liberally, they must also comply with the procedural rules
that govern pleadings.4 Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam)); Beckwith v. Bellsouth
Telecommunications Inc., 146 Fed.Appx. 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005).
See also Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that requires the allegations of a claim “be
made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a
statement of a single set of circumstances … [and] [e]ach claim found upon a separate transaction or
occurrence … shall be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). See also Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that requires a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim”
that shows that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
4
4
Discussion
Defendants assert Hatten has not articulated a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
because Hatten has not alleged a constitutional violation that was caused by enforcement
of a policy or custom. Instead, Defendants assert Hatten has only made vague and
ambiguous references to his constitutional rights and has not expressly stated how his
rights may have been violated. Defendants contend even if liberally construed by the
Court and viewed in a light most favorable to Hatten, the Complaint fails to allege facts
that state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In addition, Defendants contend that FMPD is not a proper party to the instant
matter because “police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to
suit.” (Doc. #31, at 5) (citing Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992)).
Further, Defendants assert that Florida courts have found “[w]here a police department
is an integral party of the city government as the vehicle through which the city
government fulfills its policing functions, it is not an entity subject to [a § 1983] suit.” (Doc.
#31, at 5) (citing Eddy v. City of Miami, 715 F.Supp. 1553, 1556 (S.D. Fla. 1989)).
Accordingly, Defendants assert FMPD should be dismissed from this matter.
Hatten has drafted a Complaint that can be construed as a deprivation of rights,
privileges, or immunities pursuant to Section 1983. Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572,
578 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S.
103 (1989)). Hatten has a right not to be arrested without probable cause. Von Stein, 904
F.2d at 578 (citing Motes v. Myers, 810 F.2d 1055 (11th Cir. 1987). And a violation of this
Fourteenth Amendment right may give rise to a claim for damages pursuant to Section
1983. Id. The Complaint sufficiently alleges that Codding arrested Hatten without
5
probable cause, and accordingly, the Court finds this is sufficient to maintain a Section
1983 claim against Codding.
Nonetheless, despite viewing the Complaint liberally and in a light favorably to
Hatten, a claim has not properly been alleged against FMPD. The Complaint does not
allege Hatten’s constitutional rights were violated as a result of FMPD’s custom or policy.
See Rosa v. City of Fort Myers, No. 2:05-cv-481-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 3012650, at *6
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2007) (explaining in order to establish municipal liability a plaintiff must
show that his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a municipality custom or
policy that caused a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights). And FMPD cannot be held
liable for Codding’s conduct pursuant to vicarious liability. Rosa, 2007 WL 3012650, at
*6. Further, “Florida courts have consistently found that City Police Departments are not
entitles capable of suit.” Id. (citing Eddy v. City of Miami, 715 F. Supp. 1553 (S.D. Fla.
1989); Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 750 F. Supp. 1131 (S.D. Fla. 1990); Pierre v.
Schlemmer, 932 F. Supp. 278 (M.D. Fla. 1996); Florida City Police Dep’t v. Corcoran,
661 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). Accordingly, here FMPD is not an entity capable of
being sued. Rosa, 2007 WL 3012650, at *8 (explaining that the City of Fort Myers is the
proper defendant because FMPD is part of the City of Fort Myers). The motion to dismiss
is due to be granted with regard to FMPD.
Lastly, the Court finds it is unnecessary for Hatten to file a more definite statement.
The allegations are sufficient now to maintain a Section 1983 claim against Codding.
Accordingly, the alternative motion for a more definite statement is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
6
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Alternative Motion for a More Definite
Statement, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #31) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
a. The motion is granted in that the Fort Myers Police Department is
DISMISSED from this matter.
b. In all other respects, the motion is denied.
2. Plaintiff shall have until March 25, 2014, to file a second amended complaint
correcting the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to timely file the second
amended complaint will result in dismissal, without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 4th day of March, 2014.
Copies: All Parties of Record
7
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?