WILLIAMS v. Lanier County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 8

ORDER retaining some claims and dismissing others and directing service on remaining defendants. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 6/4/2015. (aks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION DERRICK A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:15-CV-43 (HL) v. LANIER COUNTY DEPARTMENT, et al., SHERIFF’S Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) of Plaintiff Derrick A. Williams (“Plaintiff”). Reading the amended complaint in light of Plaintiff’s original pleading, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Bradford and Langely, who are deputy sheriffs in the Lanier County Sheriff’s Department.1 Plaintiff claims these officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by their conduct on March 12, 2015 at Plaintiff’s home. Because Plaintiff’s pleading does not specify in what capacity these Defendants are being sued, at this juncture the Court will assume that the officers are being sued in both their individual and official capacities. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against all other Defendants. Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to these 1 Plaintiff has not provided the first names of these officers in his complaint. Defendants fail to state claims for relief that are plausible on their face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). After approving Plaintiff to proceed IFP in this action, the Court invited him to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies in the pleading. The subsequent amendment did not rectify the problems. There are insufficient factual allegations for the Court reasonably to infer that these Defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. See id. Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, service must be effected by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(c)(3). The Marshals Service is ordered to serve the remaining named Defendants, Bradford and Langely, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The clerk’s office shall amend the caption of this case to recognize that all Defendants except for Bradford and Langely have been dismissed from this action. SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of June, 2015. s/ Hugh Lawson________________ HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE scr 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?