Clifton v. Jeff Davis County, Georgia et al
Filing
17
ORDER granting in part Defendants' 7 Motion to Dismiss, as to Clifton's false arrest claim, malicious arrest claim, Open Records Act claim, and claims against the Jeff Davis County Sheriff's Department. Defendants' Motion to D ismiss is otherwise DENIED. Clifton's 14 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Clifton is DIRECTED to file a consolidated complaint within 14 days of this Order's date or face dismissal of his remaining claims with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 4/6/2017. (csr)
9n
?l9ntteli ^toteiei IBtsitrict Court
for tfie ^otttfiem Bisetrict of (f^eorgia
iSrunsittitck BtlitOton
TYLER BRENT CLIFTON,
Plaintiff,
V.
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY,
GEORGIA;
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS;
HUGH BRANTLEY,
MARCHANT,
RAY WOOTEN,
WANDA
2:16-CV-108
and WAYNE HALL,
all Individually and as
Members of the
Jeff Davis
Board of Commissioners;
CARLA ROBERTS POWELL,
Individually and as the
County Attorney for Jeff
Davis County, Georgia; JEFF
DAVIS
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT;
BOHANNON,
Capacity;
SHERIFF'S
and PRESTON
in His Official
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants
(government
entities
dismiss this civil-rights case.
be granted in part,
arrest
claim
is
as
time-barred
second amended complaint.
A0 72A
Dkt. No.
officials)
7.
move
to
This motion will
Plaintiff Tyler Brent Clifton's false
fails to state a claim.
(Rev. 8/82)
and
and
his
malicious
arrest
claim
For his part, Clifton moves to file a
Dkt.
No.
14.
This motion will be
DENIED
withou-t
prejudice.
Clifton
consolidated complaint within ^
must
instead
file
a
days.
BACKGROUND
Clifton
No.
Dkt.
filed
He then filed an amended complaint,
1.
his
original
for 26 pages of exhibits,
never
served
this
on
on July 23,
2016.
Dkt.
No.
7.
Dkt.
the original
Then,
on
2016.
Defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss
19,
complaint
July
moved to file a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint claims,
No.
16
complaint
on September 20,
2016.
the same but
Dkt.
No.
8,
5.
at
He
1-2.
on August
2016,
Clifton
Dkt. No. 14.
among other things,
false arrest and malicious arrest based on Clifton's April 4,
2014 arrest, which followed indictment.^
Dkt. No. 14-1 3 29.
DISCUSSION
Clifton's
false
arrest
claim
is
malicious arrest claim fails to state a
time-barred.
claim.
His
Otherwise,
his
complaint needs to be consolidated.
I.
CLIFTON'S FALSE ARREST CIAIM IS TIME-BARRED.
Clifton's claim for false arrest is barred by the statute
of
limitations.
A
arrest claim and a
to
Georgia's
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
state false-arrest
two-year
statute
of
(^^Section
1983")
false
claim are both subject
limitations
^ Clifton has surrendered an Open Records Act claim,
for
personal-
along with all his
claims against the Jeff Davis County Sheriff's Department.
Dkt. No.
11, 28.
These claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice.
13 at
injury actions.
App'x 871, 872
O.C.G.A.
§ 9-3-33;
(11th Cir. 2014)
Smith v. Mercer,
(per curiam); Brown v. Lewis,
361 F. App'x 51, 54 (11th Cir. 2010)
starts
when
the plaintiff
process."
Jones v.
Cir. 2011)
(per curiam)
391
(2007)).
indictment,
His
false
^'is
(per curiam).
The clock
detained pursuant
Union City,
450 F.
to
a
legal
809
App'x 807,
(11th
(citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384,
Clifton was detained on April 4,
but did not bring this
arrest
580 F.
claim i s
thus
2014 following
suit until
July 8,
2016.
time-barred.
Clifton argues that the statute of limitations is tolled
by
O.C.G.A.
against
§
9-3-99,
^'the
which
victim
of
stops
an
the
alleged
clock
from
crime"
running
^'until
the
prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise
terminated."
arrest.
claims
to
See O.C.G.A. § 16-5-42.
enjoys
years
Clifton
tolling
allowed
officer
is
Plaintiff's
of
by
fully
false
§
The
claims
9-3-99,
investigated
position.
the
victim
By his logic,
arrest
O.C.G.A.
be
the
criminal
maximum
the
The
Court
a
every arrestee
unless
sooner.
Georgia
for
of
arresting
Court
of
six
rejects
Appeals
has
rejected legal interpretations that would lead "virtually all
criminal prosecutions
Pinkston v.
App.
1990).
.
.
[to]
result
in a
civil lawsuit."
City of Albany,
395
S.E.2d
587,
588-89
Presumably,
reading O.C.G.A.
§
.
it would even more
9-3-99 to
(Ga.
Ct.
strongly reject
allow false-arrest
claims
to be
routinely
filed
six
years
after
the
events
in
question.
Federal precedent also counsels against applying O.C.G.A. § 93-99 in the manner Plaintiff requests:
has
held
1983
that
claims
crime,
but
because
instead
DeKalb Cty.
2011)
statute
ex rel.
(per curiam) ;
2015 WL
8773401,
at
inapplicable
''she
she
was
was
Jones,
not
to
the
an
arrestee's
victim
of
the defendant."
430 F.
(M.D.
Ga.
the
838
Evans,
Dec.
Section
alleged
Bridqewater
App'x 837,
see also Sims v.
*3
The Eleventh Circuit
No.
14,
v.
(11th Cir.
5:15-CV-285,
2015)
(holding no
tolling for false-arrest claim).
There is nothing to the contrary in Valades v. Uslu,
S.E.2d 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
689
There, the plaintiffs' false-
arrest claim was held not to be tolled because the arresting
officer was never prosecuted.
Harrison
v.
McAfee,
788
Id. at 342.
S.E.2d
872,
But,
878-79
as noted by
(Ga.
Ct.
App.
2016)—which abrogated Valades—Valades "did not make clear on
what
basis
'victims'
875.
the
plaintiffs
took the
position that
they were
within the meaning of [O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99]."
The
assumption,
Clifton's
Court
will
not
rely
on
Valades's
Id. at
unspoken
especially not when Harrison minimized it.
false
arrest
claim is
dismissed with prejudice.
time-barred,
and
Thus,
so must
be
II.
CLIFTON'S MALICIOUS ARREST CLAIM FAILS.
Clifton's
prosecution
malicious
malicious
against
arrest
him
commenced.
prosecution
^'dif fer [ing]
claim
are
fails
because
Malicious
mutually
arrest
exclusive
a
and
torts,
only in that malicious prosecution contains the
additional element of showing that a prosecution was carried
on."
McCord
1983);
see
v.
also
Jones,
311
Stephens
v.
(Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
against him began.
S.E.2d
209,
Zimmerman,
210
774
(Ga.
Ct.
S.E.2d
App.
811,
815
Here, Clifton alleges that a prosecution
He claims that ^'Defendants refused to drop
the felony indictment" against him for a
long time,
he "was
forced to expended [sic] thousands of dollars in his defense,"
and he
40,
"was
44;
forced to defend himself in Court."
see also Dkt.
entered nolle
Thus,
he
No.
prosequi
cannot
pursue
14-1 5
after
a
38
Dkt.
No.
1
SISI
(stating government only
"lengthy,
contested hearing.").
claim for malicious
arrest,
and
so
COMPLAINT
IS
this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
III.
CLIFTON'S MOTION
DENIED WITHOUT
Clifton's
TO
motion
allegations,
served,
HIS
SECOND AMENDED
PREJUDICE.
to
cannot be granted now.
his
FILE
file
First,
claims,
and
superseding complaint.
operative pleading only."
his
second
amended
complaint
he must bring together all of
exhibits
in
Normally,
Marion v.
a
single,
properly
"a case may have one
Nickels,
No.
09-CV-723,
2010
WL
148686,
Parlante v.
n.3
(E.D.
at
*3
No.
Cazares,
Gal.
(W.D.
CIV S-11-2696,
Feb.
16,
Wise.
2012).
amended complaint,
2010);
here
No.
1.
wants
see
McDaniel
at
1323506,
*10
complaint .
.
Clifton
in
which adds 26 pages of exhibits—and
Dkt.
No.
5;
Dkt.
No.
16
He
his
Loya,
(D.N.M.
No.
Mar.
CIV
6,
1372382,
muddied
the
waters.
complaint
all
the
2015)
Now,
he
allegations
2015
{'MA]
No.
WL
new
must
purify
including
that
he
is
Gursky v. Dep^t of Corrs., No. lO-CV-113, 2010
at
*4
(W.D.
Wise.
Mar.
30,
2010).
"To
avoid
the complaint must be complete in one document,"
with all evidentiary exhibits attached.
within
14-0511,
is thus directed to "start from scratch,
amended
ambiguity,
v.
Dkt.
. replaces the old one.").
has
relying on."
WL
three.
Then, there is his proposed second amended complaint,
but
them.
at *5
There is his
which tries to incorporate the earlier complaints.
14-1;
accord
2012 WL 525690,
Dkt.
which he never served on Defendants.
at 1-2.
14,
Clifton
There is his original complaint.
first
Jan.
14
days
of
this
Order's
Id.
Failure to abide
issuance
will
result
in
dismissal of this case with prejudice for failure to state a
claim.
See Marion,
2010 WL 148686,
at *3.
CONCLUSION
For
(Dkt.
No.
the
7)
reasons
above.
Defendants'
is GRANTED in part,
6
Motion
to
Dismiss
as to Clifton's false arrest
claim,
malicious
claims
against
Defendants'
arrest
the
Motion
claim,
Jeff
to
Davis
Dismiss
Motion for Leave to File a
without prejudice.
complaint
within
is
Open
Records
County
Act
Sheriff's
claim,
and
Department.
otherwise DENIED.
Clifton's
Second Amended Complaint is DENIED
Clifton is DIRECTED to file a consolidated
14
days
of
this
Order's
date
or
dismissal of his remaining claims with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of April, 2017.
LISA TODBEY WOOD,t CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
face
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?