Irons v. City of Holly Hill et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting 73 motion to dismiss; denying as moot 74 motion to dismiss. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendants City of Holly Hill and Stephen Aldrich as parties to this action. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/9/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DEREASE L. IRONS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-479-Orl-37GJK

CITY OF HOLLY HILL; STEPHEN
ALDRICH; and JAMES PATTON,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
In the instant civil rights action, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se against officer James
Patton in his individual capacity (“Patton”) and police chief Stephen Aldrich in his
official capacity (“Aldrich”). As such, the Court construes the claim against Aldrich as a
claim against the City of Holly Hill (“the City”). See Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764,
776 (11th Cir. 1991).
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court has allowed him to proceed on claims
set forth in separate iterations of the Complaint—namely: (1) an unlawful search claim
against Patton as set forth in the First Amended Complaint (“Count I”) (Doc. 23, ¶¶ 1–
44); and (2) an unlawful search claim against the City as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint (“Count II”) (Doc. 61). (Doc. 70.)
On May 4, 2017, the City moved to dismiss Count II on several grounds. (Doc. 73
(“the City’s MTD”).) In response, Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss Count II,
conceding the difficulties of proceeding against the City without counsel. (Doc. 74
-1-

(“Plaintiff’s MTD).) Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s MTD, the Court construes the
City’s MTD as unopposed and finds that it is due to be granted. Going forward, this
action will proceed on Count I alone—that is, the unlawful search claim set forth against
Patton in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23, ¶¶ 1–44).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Defendant City of Holly Hill’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Complaint
(Doc. 73) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Against the City of Holly Hill [and]
Stephen Aldrich[] [Pursuant to] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 61) is DISMISSED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntar[ily] Dismiss [the] Second [A]mended
Complaint and Proceed with [His] First [A]mended Complaint (Doc. 74) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

4.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendants City of Holly Hill
and Stephen Aldrich as parties to this action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 9, 2017.

-2-

Copies to:
Pro se Plaintiff
Counsel of Record

-3-