Stefani v. City of Grovetown et al
Filing
26
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss. TheCourt dismisses Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendants Powell and Wheatley and Plaintiff's state-law claims against Defendants Jones, Powell, Wheatley, and Na lley. The Court also dismisses Plaintiff's state-law claims against Grovetown for false/malicious arrest and false imprisonment. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Grovetown, Jones, and Nalley will proceed,as will Plaintiff's state-law claims for malicious prosecutionand negligence against Grovetown. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/02/2016. (thb)
IN THE
UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR THE
OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
CHAD STEFANI,
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
CITY OF GROVETOWN, a municipality
of the State of Georgia, GARY
JONES, individually and in his
official capacity, SCOTT
WHEATLEY, individually and in his
official capacity, CHRISTOPHER
POWELL, individually and in his
official capacity, and JONES
NALLEY, individually and in his
official capacity,
l:15-cv-164
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
Defendants.
*
ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendants'
(Doc.
9.)
For the reasons below,
Defendants'
motion to dismiss.
motion to dismiss is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
For purposes of Defendants'
assumes
the
truth
of
the
motion to dismiss,
following
allegations
Plaintiff's Complaint and its attached exhibits.
v.
City of Miami,
district
complaint
811
F.3d 1271,
1277
court can generally consider
in
ruling
on
a motion
to
the Court
drawn
from
See Hoefling
(11th Cir.
2016)
("A
exhibits attached to a
dismiss,
and
if
the
allegations of the complaint about a particular exhibit conflict
with the contents of the exhibit itself, the exhibit controls.")
1. February 17,
On
Thursday,
Plaintiff
Road
in
February
reported
Evans,
2015
to
17,
work
Georgia.
at
His truck remained at
SI
Ex.
14,
white
B
at
38.)
Belair Road.
Doc.
C&B until
for
a
a.m.,
job
the
job site
when
his
in
co-worker
the
called
and
asked
returned shortly after 1:00 p.m.
On his way back,
at
around
complaint
with
the
("GDPS").
(Id. f 18.)
a.m.,
Washington
13,
Ex.
B
2015.
at
(Id.
left C&B in a
located
at
South
Old
At 12:40 p.m., Plaintiff
company-owned truck,
him
to
(Id^ 1 17,
return,
but,
Plaintiff
Ex, B at 40-42, Ex.
Plaintiff picked up lunch at a Taco
Bell on Belair Road in Evans, Georgia.
Meanwhile,
1
Plaintiff
site
same white
20
7:30
on
February 24,
(Id^ 1 16, Ex. B at 49.)
left
C at 7.)
Construction
Compl.,
Around 8:00
company-owned truck
approximately
C&B
(Am.
38.)
at
12:49
Grovetown
(Id. M
p.m.,
75-76.)
Rachel
Department
Lucas
of
filed
Public
a
Safety
Her complaint alleged "that a white male
driving a four door dodge ram truck with no state license tag
and a broken windshield,
wearing
a black hat,
with strawberry-blond hair and a goatee
blue
jacket
over
a red-and-green
plaid
shirt approached her while she was getting her children into her
own vehicle."
Ms.
(Id^ 1 18, Ex. B at 4, 17, Ex. D.)
Lucas's complaint,
According to
this individual asked her whether she'd
like to earn extra money.
(Id_^ SI 19.)
She replied, "sure," and
the man
informed her
that
he
wished he
had
children
and that
wanted to spend time with Lucas's children alone.
(Id.
He offered her $200.00 per hour with her children,
that
time,
eight,
six,
and
three
years
After receiving this alarming offer,
home
for
the
GDPS
mentioned above.
After
where
(Id.
receiving
Grovetown police
she
old.
Lucas
1
19.)
who were,
(Id. ,
Ex.
21.)
At
Powell,
an
immediately left her
submitted
the
incident
report
5 20.)
Lucas's
chief,
report,
Defendant
Gary
created a Facebook post
allegedly
(Id.
approximately
officer
with
anonymous
II 22-23,
Ex.
at
D.)
Jones,
tip
the
in
B at
2:06
p.m.,
GDPS,
response
5-6,
Defendant
purportedly
to
Ex. C at
Jones's
1,
Ex.
the
concerning the
incident and providing Lucas's description of the suspect.
SI
he
(Id.
Christopher
received
Facebook
F.)
an
post.
The tipster
reportedly told Powell that
Plaintiff owned a truck similar to
Lucas's
SI
description.
(Id.
Scott Wheatley of the tip.
by Defendant Jones
that
no
anonymous
Nalley,
tip
was
22.)
(Id.
Powell
I 23.)
informed
A later investigation
an investigator with GDPS,
received by
Defendant
Powell
revealed
around 2:06
p.m.
and that no tip from a female caller was received at any time.
(Id.
Ex.
F.)
There
was,
received around 3:00 p.m.,
was known to flash women.
however,
a
tip
from
a male
which simply claimed that
(Id.)
caller
Plaintiff
Around 2:00 p.m.,1 Powell contacted Lucas and instructed her
to conduct
26.)
an online
Plaintiff
photos
of
search for
alleges
Plaintiff
plaintiff . . . ."
that
Plaintiff Chad Stefani.
Powell
"[w]ithout
(Id. I 44.)
any
directed
Lucas
evidence
Soon after,
to
(Id.
to
I
view
implicate
Lucas called Powell
and informed him that her search revealed a picture of Plaintiff
that
looked identical to
the
suspect.
(Id. I 27.)
Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants knew "that this method of identification
was
improper,
implicate
best
suggestive,
[P]laintiff."
law-enforcement
prevent
"tainting
(IdL_ I 50.)
and
designed
to
He further alleges that
practices
exist
which
are
designed
victim's
a
mind
prior
to
showing
the
48,
Georgia
POST
victim ... a photographic
training materials,
inadmissible,
lineup."
(Id.
I
to
Ex. N.)
Powell notified Wheatley that Lucas made an identification.
(Id.
GDPS
I 28.)
At
called
3:25
the
p.m.,
Wheatley and an
Columbia
County
investigator with
Sheriff's
Department
Investigative Division and spoke with administrative coordinator
Michelle Carter.
(Id. I 31.)
The officers asked Carter for a
mug shot of Plaintiff and any information the County had on him.
(Id. )
Minutes later, Carter emailed a mug shot of Plaintiff to
Wheatley.
(Id.
I 32.)
Soon after,
another GDPS member called
1 For clarity's sake, the Court notes that the times alleged in
the Complaint appear somewhat nonsensical at first glance.
These
inconsistent times are actually material to Plaintiff's allegations
and are derived from inconsistent timelines in exhibits B, C, and D.
[Carter]
on
Wheatley's
because GDPS's
behalf
software was
and
not
requested
a
functioning.
photo
(Id.
lineup
I 33.)
At
3:30 p.m., Defendant Nalley arrived at GDPS and was assigned as
the case agent to investigate Lucas's complaint.
Shortly
the
photo
after
lineup,
Wheatley
Jones
and
Carter's
called Calvin
about
Wal-Mart
in
another
incident
Grovetown.
which
(Id.)
discussion
Morris,
Columbia County Sheriff's Department.
Morris
may
Jones
Jones
that
Hispanic
male
and
unrelated
and
that
completely different.
with
Morris,
requested
a
information
short
Jones,
time
photo
on
the
informed
the
have
and
a photo
called
the
suspect
I 35.)
as
Morris
described
incidents
were
suspects
were
the
After
called
the
at
the
of
unaware
the
was
that
I 36.)
lineup,
Jones
suspect
Jones
apparently
(Id.
of
Jones asked
occurred
described
descriptions
(Id.
Plaintiff
later,
Wal-Mart
concerning
a member
(Id. I 34.)
having strawberry-blond hair and a goatee.
informed
(Id. I 29.)
a
concluding the call
that
Wheatley
Carter
and
lineup.
Carter
as
(Id.
and
told
already
requested
I 37.)
her
A
that,
although Plaintiff had been identified as the suspect, he wanted
the photo lineup sent anyway.
Morris
suspect
(Id.
I 38.)
Jones then called
and told him that Lucas had identified Plaintiff as
after
receiving
received the photo lineup.
Plaintiff's
(Id. I 39.)
mug
shot
before
the
GDPS
Morris told Jones that
the physical description Lucas gave in the incident report did
not
match
Plaintiff
who
"is
bald
headed
with
a
dark
beard."
(Id.
I
39,
Ex.
B
at
identified Plaintiff,
32-33.)
Jones
Although
requested that
Lucas
Morris
had
already
send him the
lineup so that he could show it to Lucas and "make it official."
(Id.
I
42,
Ex.
Department's
B
at
Investigative
to GDPS at 4:01 p.m.
After
Lucas to
54.)
return to
identified
being
the
photo
the
as
that
(Id.)
Plaintiff's
Lucas
a
Sheriff's
photo
violation of O.C.G.A.
4:30 p.m.
suspect
made
[his]
for
§ 16-4-1.
Defendants
lineup,
Lucas
again.
this
lineup
instructed
(Id.
II
50,
immediately
(Id.
identification
I
54.)
"because
photo and informed that he was
Around 4:50 p.m.,
arrest
At 7:11 p.m.,
lineup,
photo
the
she had already been shown
for
County
transmitted
the GDPS building at
Plaintiff
a suspect."
Columbia
Division
shown
alleges
The
(Id^ I 43.)
receiving
Upon
Plaintiff
35.)
Nalley obtained warrants
attempted
(IcL
child
I 55,
Ex.
molestation
in
G.)
Jones wrote a second Facebook post in which
he updated the suspect information and included Plaintiff's mug
shot.
(Id. I 56.)
We
The post read,
have
identified
a
suspect
and
the
complainant has made a positive ID via a
photo lineup.
Our investigations division
has
obtained
three
(3)
[f]elony
arrest
warrants for the suspect for Criminal Intent
Child
Molestation.
The
suspect
is
identified
Stefani
has
as
Chad
not
been
Eric
Stefani
taken
into
....
custody
as
of yet.
The photo attached is a mug shot
from Columbia County.
We will have Stefani
i[n] custody just as soon as we can find him
and get our hands on him.
His best course
of
action
will
be
to
surrender
to
the
[GDPS].
bars.
(Id.
I
56,
Jones.
H.)
Ex.
went to GDPS
We will not rest until he is behind
Chief
Upon
and was
learning
arrested.
of
the
I
57.)
(Id.
warrants,
Plaintiff
Plaintiff remained
in confinement without bond from his arrest on February 17, 2015
until April 1, 2015.
(IcL I 58.)
2. Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The next day,
Nalley met with Brian Stefani at C&B.
(Id. I
They viewed surveillance video of Plaintiff's truck,
61.)
which
Nalley determined did not leave 4753 Washington Road between the
hours of 8:23 a.m. on February 17th and 5:15 a.m. on the 18th.2
(Id. I 60.)
Nalley also obtained a search warrant for Britland
Gove's house.
(Id.
I 67.)
3. Thursday, February 19, 2015
On Thursday,
February 19th,
one of Plaintiff's co-workers.
Nalley spoke with Josh Winyard,
(Id. I 80.)
He told Nalley that
he could account for Plaintiff's whereabouts until 12:40 p.m.
February 17th and again shortly after 1:00 p.m.
(Id.,
Ex.
on
C at
8.)
4. Friday, February 20, 2015
Plaintiff's
and
Plaintiff's
fiancee
counsel
retained counsel
engaged
on Plaintiff's behalf,
private
investigator
Douglas
2 The Court understands paragraph 60 to allege that the video
showed
the
truck
there
until
5:15
a.m.
In
light
of
Plaintiff's
previous allegation that the truck remained at C&B until Plaintiff's
release from confinement, presumably additional video tapes would have
shown the truck remained there for weeks.
Parker.
(icL
II
73-74.)
Plaintiff's
counsel
and
Parker
obtained a copy of the receipt of Plaintiff's lunch purchased at
1:04 p.m. at the Taco Bell on Belair Road in Evans,
February
a
video
recording depicting Plaintiff paying for food at 1:04 p.m.
(Id.
I 76.)
17th.
(Id.
I
75.)
Parker
also
Georgia on
viewed
Plaintiff's counsel mailed this information to Jones and
the District Attorney for the Augusta Judicial Circuit at
a.m.
on February 20,
2015.
11:47
(IcL I 77.)
5. Tuesday, February 24,
2015
Nalley made contact with Britland Gove to execute a search
warrant at the Plaintiff's residence.
not
recover a blue
jacket,
but
shirt from Plaintiff's closet.
(Ex. C at 9.)
Nalley did
collected a multi-color
flannel
(Id.)
6. Wednesday, February 25, 2015
As mentioned previously,
all
recorded phone lines
voice
history
providing
of
(Id.
II 68-70.)
on February 17, 2015,
Plaintiff's
flashing
Nalley reviewed
in GDPS's dispatch and found only one
recording of an anonymous tip.
occurred at 3:03 p.m.
on February 25th,
women.
name
and
(Id.
I
That recording
and contained a male
describing
68.)
The
Plaintiff's
information
provided by this "tipster" conflicted with the tip described by
Powell.
(Id.)
The purported tip relayed by Powell featured a
female tipster who matched Plaintiff's truck to the suspect's.
(Compl. Ex. C at 2.)
When confronted by Nalley regarding these
discrepancies,
explained that
Powell
he
spoke
with
the
male
tipster
first,
then the
female.
(Id.
I
69,
Ex.
F.)
However,
Nalley never discovered a recording of the female tip describing
Plaintiff's truck,
Ex.
F.)
the
purported
(Id.
Nalley
I 71,
which Powell claimed to receive.
informed
anonymous
Ex.
Jones
tip
and
of
Powell's
about
actions
Powell's
I 70,
concerning
call
to
Lucas.
F.)
7. March 31,
2015 - Preliminary Hearing
On March 31, 2015,
the Magistrate Court of Columbia County,
Georgia held a preliminary hearing in the State's
Plaintiff.
(Id.
(Id.
I
82.)
The Magistrate
Court
case against
determined that
the State failed to establish probable cause that Plaintiff took
a
"substantial
(Id.
17,
I
83,
Ex.
2015,
release,
step"
B
toward
at
51.)
until April 1,
the
identified.
actual
(Id.
commission
Plaintiff was
2015.
Exs.
child
of
molestation.
confined from February
(Id^ I 58.)
perpetrator
I 85,
of
Since Plaintiff's
the
offense
has
been
L, M.)
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff
filed
Grovetown,
Gary
on
13,
October
answered
and
his
Jones,
2015.
filed
Christopher
(Doc.
a
1.)
motion
to
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
briefing
Complaint
19),
the
motion
(Doc.
14)
Complaint
to
and,
against
Powell,
On
dismiss,
9,
and
November
dismiss
(Docs.
Defendants
10).
Scott
11th,
under
of
Wheatley,
Defendants
Federal
Rule
of
During the course of
Plaintiff
filed
with leave of the Court
a "Superseding Amended Complaint."
City
an
Amended
(Order,
Doc.
(Am. Compl., Doc.
20.)
The
Superseding
violations
continued
due
Amended
to
also
prosecution.
and
an
arrest
unlawful
false
153-72.)
attorneys'
alleges
constitutional
and
search.
state-law
arrest,
(Id.
and
unlawful
alleges
false/malicious
damages
an
detention,
Plaintiff
Complaint
detention,
(Id.
counts
II
of
imprisonment,
his
1.00-52.)
negligence,
and
malicious
He seeks compensatory and punitive
fees
and
litigation
expenses.
(Id.
II
186-97.)
Rather
than
refile
their
motion
to
dismiss,
Defendants
asserted their motion against the Superseding Amended Complaint.
(Defs.'
Reply Br.,
Doc.
21 at 1-2.)
Defendants'
motion is now
ripe for adjudication.
II.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
must contain "a
that
the
8(a)(2),
a complaint
short and plain statement of the claim showing
pleader
is
entitled to
relief"
to
give
the
defendant
fair notice of both the claim and the supporting grounds.
Atl.
Corp.
v. Twombly,
defendant's
complaint
Rule
must
"state
Twombly,
a
550
Rule 12(b)(6)
12(b)(6)
include
right to relief
must
550 U.S.
above
at
motion
enough
555
to
"factual
the speculative
claim to
U.S.
544,
relief
570.
that
is
(2007).
dismiss,
To
a
allegations
level,"
survive a
plaintiff's
to
raise
and those
plausible
Although a complaint
on
Bell
its
a
facts
face."
attacked by
a
motion need not be buttressed by detailed factual
10
allegations,
than
labels
elements
Rule
the plaintiff's pleading obligation "requires more
and
of
a
conclusions,
cause
8 pleading
of
and
action
At
662,
the
formulaic
will
not
678
(2009)
Id.
a complaint
the
The
than an unadorned,
the-
accusation."
at
of
555.
(quoting Twombly,
same time,
recitation
do."
standard "demands more
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
556 U.S.
a
Ashcroft
556 U.S.
v.
Iqbal,
at 555).
should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim "unless it appears beyond a doubt that
the
plaintiff
can
entitle
him to
(1957);
see
2011
WL
Marshall
1171,
must
accept
construe
Bd.
1174
all
at
true
(11th Cir.
(N.D.
Cir.
all
reasonable
to the plaintiff.
of
circumstances
Gibson,
Statebridge
Educ.
(11th
as
v.
*2
of
set
Conley v.
Kabir
4500050,
F.2d
no
relief."
also
Cnty.
prove
v.
Ga.
Co.,
Sept.
Marshall
1993)).
facts
At
Hoffman-Pugh v.
in
27,
this
in
the
Ramsey,
would
41,
45-46
U.S.
No.
Cnty.
alleged
inferences
355
that
1:ll-cv-2747,
2011)
Gas
Dist.,
stage,
the
(citing
the
Court
complaint
light most
992
and
favorable
312 F.3d 1222,
1225
2002) .
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's § 1983 Malicious Prosecution Claim
Plaintiff
amendment
right
alleges
to be
that
free
Defendants
from unreasonable
fourteenth amendment due-process rights.
arrested
pursuant
to
a
violated
warrant,
11
his
his
seizures
fourth
and his
Because Plaintiff was
Complaint
is
properly
construed as alleging a malicious prosecution claim.
Carter v.
Gore,
Malicious
557
F.
App'x
904,
906
(11th
Cir.
2014).
prosecution is a "violation of the Fourth Amendment and a viable
constitutional
tort
323
881
F.3d
872,
malicious
cognizable
(11th
prosecution
Cir.
claim
under
§
1983."
2003).
under
"To
§
Wood v.
establish
1983,
the
Kesler,
a
federal
plaintiff
must
prove a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from
seizures
unreasonable
in
addition
to
the
law tort of malicious prosecution."
1983
the
malicious
common
criminal
prosecution
law
tort
of
prosecution
claim,
instituted
Id.
the
malicious
elements
the
constituent
elements
include[]:
continued
by
the
defendant;
(2)
terminated
in
the
damage
the
to
plaintiff
accused's
accused."
favor;
Id.
and
(1)
(3)
(4)
"Because
of
a
present
with malice and without probable cause;
plaintiff
common
"[F]or purposes of a §
prosecution
or
of
that
caused
lack
of
probable cause is a required element to prove a § 1983 claim for
malicious
prosecution
in
existence
of
cause
Mills,
517
exists
when
knowledge,
F.3d
the
of
information,
2006)
1232,
1237
facts
which
and
he
of
defeats
(11th
the
the
Cir.
claim."
2008).
circumstances
or
she
Constitution,
has
"Probable
within
shown,
Miller
v.
that
the
suspect
the
reasonably
Harget, 458
F.3d
(internal quotations omitted).
12
has
committed
1251,
the
Kjellsen
1259
Additionally,
v.
cause
officers1
trustworthy
would cause a prudent person to believe,
circumstances
offense."
probable
violation
under the
...
(11th
an
Cir.
"[p]robable
continue a prosecution,
cause is required to
a defendant or to
at 1238
institute a prosecution."
(citing Wood,
The
sufficiently
with
and
Defendants
plead
that
that,
qualified
immunity
cause."
The
Kjellsen,
517
F.3d
323 F.3d at 882).
individual
malice
not just to arrest
they
in
because
Court
argue
acted
that
without
any
event,
they
acted
begins
with
Plaintiff
probable
they
are
with
the
failed
cause
and
protected
"arguable
individual
to
by
probable
defendants'
qualified-immunity argument.
1. Qualified Immunity and Arguable Probable Cause
For qualified immunity to apply,
actual
Brown
probable
v.
City
Cir.2010).
a
of
but
only
Huntsville,
Arguable'
Ala.,
608
probable
F.3d
724,
cause."
734
(11th
"The standard for arguable probable cause is whether
reasonable
the
cause,
Defendants "need not have
same
officer
knowledge
in
as
the
same
the
circumstances
officer
in
and
question
possessing
could
have
reasonably believed that probable cause existed in the light of
well-established
(11th
Cir.
officers
existence
liable."
*8
1994).
to
of
make
Eubanks
"This
probable
579
Jan.
v.
5,
cause
2015)
(11th Cir.
Gerwen,
standard
reasonable
Bradley v. Tucker,
(S.D. Ga.
F.2d 572,
law."
permits
mistakes
without
No.
40
with
being
4:14-CV-165,
F.3d
law
13
1160
enforcement
regard
held
to
the
personally
2015 WL 64944,
(citing Von Stein v.
1990)).
1157,
Brescher,
at
904
For
about
qualified-immunity
Defendants'
investigatory
Defendants arrived at
knew
of
Powell's
Defendants
were
Plaintiff's
purposes,
not
aware
of
counsel.
in
the
conduct,
the
Based
stage
is
evidence
Plaintiff's
not
the
questions
how
and
provided
allegations,
appropriate
is
indicative
of
the
alleged,
clearly
Defendants
depicts
different
truck
Plaintiff
city,
different
within
upon watching this
even
suspect.
deficiency
Plaintiff
It
in
is,
the
alleges.
allegation that
lunch
clothes,
and the suspect.
It
of
video
cause
course,
may
now,
Defendants
equally
render
it
dismiss.
video
that
Bell
driving
minutes
in
of
a
a
the
is plausible that,
officer
that
in
Taco
fifteen
a reasonable
which
and
approximately
probable
For
at
for
difficulty
exculpatory
different
video,
arguable
an
purchasing
wearing
incident between Lucas
have
possessed
by
the
time
determining arguable probable cause during a motion to
As
which
One alleged piece of evidence,
record,
the
which Defendants
conduct,
exculpatory
on
has
including
investigatory
resolving those questions.
is
Court
Plaintiff as the suspect,
alleged
motion-to-dismiss
the
could no
Plaintiff
plausible
not
the Court must
possessed evidence
as
was
that
the
some
exculpatory
accept
of
longer
as
Plaintiff's
a clear video
that demonstrates the lack of probable cause.3
3 The Court emphasizes that other evidence that shows
potential lack of arguable probable cause is alleged to exist.
14
the
The
Additionally,
determination
Defendants
is
as
an
have
Attorney's
mentioned
ongoing
argued
office cuts
so, but see Carter,
above,
one.
that
probable
cause
1238.
Kjellsen,
517
F.3d
conduct
of
the
the
off Defendants'
557 F.
the
liability.
at
District
This may be
App'x at 907, but the conduct of the
District Attorney's office is not presented on the record before
the
Court.
As
identification,
among
other
plausibly
it
stands,
and two videos
alleged
alleged
pled
that
the
on
the
false
tip,
suspect
containing exculpatory evidence,
exculpatory
evidence,
Defendants'
cause to prosecute him.
sufficiently
based
lacked
For these same
probable-cause
Plaintiff
arguable
reasons,
element
has
probable
Plaintiff has
of
his
malicious
prosecution § 1983 claim.
2. Malice Element
Defendants
^malice'
not
and
argue
that
^falsification'
factual
allegations."
Plaintiff's
of
evidence
(Defs.'
Br.,
"vague
are
accusations
mere
Doc.
9
of
conclusions,
at
20.)
The
Court disagrees.
The
malice
personal
spite
consideration
individual
S.E.2d
75,
element
or
of
in
a
mankind,
injured."
78-79
of
malicious
general
directed
Fleming
(2000).
v.
prosecution
disregard
by
U-Haul
Malice
may
of
"consists
the
in
right
chance
against
the
Co.
Georgia,
541
be
of
inferred
if:
(1)
Court focuses on the video only as a stark example of the difficulty
of evaluating probable cause at this stage of the case.
15
defendant's
disregard
acts
for
were
or
plaintiff; or
conscious
(3)
Plaintiff
existence of
wanton;
is
has
Nalley,
tip.
(Id.)
to
lied
to
alleged
that
with
the
(Am. Compl.
of
the
falsified
the
Id.
truck to
that,
the
when
the truck
confronted by
existence
of
Plaintiff also plausibly alleged that,
evidence connecting Plaintiff to the
reckless
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?