Clifton v. Jeff Davis County, Georgia et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Dismiss. Count III is DISMISSED. All claims against the Jeff Davis County Board of Commissioners; Wooten, Brantley, Marchant, Hall, and Powell in their official capacities; and Sheriff Bohannon in his official capacity are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 7/17/2017. (csr)

Stt

?lStttteti States! IBtie(trtct Court

for tfie ^outfiem Biotrict of <(^eorgta
i@ntnofatit(k jitiitoton
TYLER BRENT CLIFTON,

Plaintiff,
2:16-CV-108

V.

JEFF DAVIS COUNTY,
JEFF

DAVIS

GEORGIA;

COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS; RAY WOOTEN,
HUGH BRANTLEY, WANDA
MARCHANT, 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; and
PRESTON BOHANNON, in His
Official Capacity;
Defendants.

ORDER

Defendants

move

to

partially

Clifton's civil rights complaint.

dismiss

Plaintiff

Dkt. No. 20.^

Tyler

The motion

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons below.

^ The Court directed Clifton to file his currently operative complaint in a
Clifton did so, then moved for
previous order.
Dkt. No. 17 at 7.
Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.
That motion was unnecessary, but
permission to do so.
i s GRANTED.
Clifton

also

moves

to

add

Defendant

Preston

Bohannon

in

his

Defendants do not oppose this motion
individual capacity.
Dkt. No. 29.
per se, only raising objections to certain claims that will be discussed
below.

Dkt.

No.

30.

This motion i s also GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

As it must at this stage of the case,

the

truth

operative

of

the

facts

complaint,

alleged

dkt.

no.

in

18.

the Court assumes

Clifton's

Clifton

looked

Defendant Jeff Davis County, Georgia's finances.
SlSl 13-14,

16.

currently

Dkt. No.

Id. fSI 15-21.

Then, Clifton started building a trailer park.
His next-door-neighbor.
happy

18

That upset several of the Defendants who are

Jeff Davis County officials.

not

into

about

Id. SI 23.

Defendant Commissioner Wayne Hall, was

that.

Id.

SI

24.

Clifton

approached

the

Commissioners about putting in a water line underneath a road

that the county did not own, even though he did not need their
permission

to

do

specifically tell
So,

on June 1,

Three
about

the

so.

[Clifton]

2013,

days

Id.

line

and

SI 31.

The next

day,

June

Carla

Powell

filed

Id.

Hall

water

Commissioners

that

he did.

later.

and

SISI

25-27,
he

could not."

Clifton

installation

5,

2013,

Defendant

Jeff

an

incident

They

that
of

Davis

under

roads,

even

he

a

SI

was

27.

angry

trailer.

report

Board

of

regarding
Id.

SI 32.

had not previously prosecuted or fined anyone

lines

Id.

not

Id.

Defendant County Attorney

line with the local sheriff's office.

water

'Mid

SI 28.

told

the

29.

the

water

The county

for putting in

though—unlike

people actually damaged the roads in doing so.

County

Clifton—some

Id. SI 33.

The

incident

involvement.

instigated

report

Powell

was

not

the

^^personally

[Clifton's]

arrest

the other Defendants."

Id.

end

of

researched

the

and prosecution

f

34.

Defendants'

law

and

together

with

They did so even though

they '''had evidence that the road was not damaged and that the
County did not own the land" beside or under the road.

Id.

Defendant Sheriff Preston Bohannon approved the incident

report on March 18, 2014.

grand

jury

for

Id. SI 37.

criminal

Clifton was indicted by

trespass

government property on April 1,

and

2014.

interfering

Id.

with

SISI 38-39.

These

charges were more serious than one for damage to county roads.
Id.

SISI

41-43.

intervention.

They

Id.

Clifton was

"was

told

attorney
prove a

that
"was

were

chosen

to

Defendants'

SI 43.

arrested on April

he

needed

informed

point."

due

Id.

to

that

SI 44.

4,

2014.

Id.

SI

40.

He

lesson,"

and

his

be

taught

a

the

County

was

just

trying

to

Clifton "was also told that the

felony charges might be dropped if he agreed to apologize to
Defendants."
case.

Id.

charges.

Id.

Id.
SI

47.

He

spent

Then,

several
the

thousand dollars

prosecution

nol

on his

prossed

the

SI 49.

Clifton filed this lawsuit on July 8,

2016.

Dkt. No.

1.

He alleges malicious prosecution under federal and state law,
conspiracy,

defamation,

and

intentional

infliction

of

emotional

distress.

Dkt.

partially dismiss the case,
disposition.

No.

18.

Defendants

moved

to

and their motion is now ripe for

Dkt. Nos. 20, 27.
LEGAL

STANDARDS

^'Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim
for relief will .
the .

.

.

sense."

.

. be a context-specific task that requires

court to draw on its judicial experience and common
Ashcroft

v.

Iqbal,

556

U.S.

662,

679

(2009).

A

complaint must be "a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
P.

8(a)(2).

raise
Atl.

a

Its

allegations

right to relief above the

Corp.

Iqbal,

"[f]actual

V.

556

Twombly,

U.S.

allegations

at

550

678.

from which

U.S.
It

must

legal

Inc.,

253

must

assume

F.3d

allegations,
conclusion
Allain,

theory."

544,

has

[the court]

678,

the

it

684

v.

555

to

can

is

265,

"not
as

Aware

(11th Cir.

truthfulness

couched

478 U.S.

Roe

a

286

bound

of

to

factual
(1986).

be

enough

speculative level."
see

to

Bell
also

inferential

identify each of the
recovery under some

Woman

2001).
the

(2007);

"contain

material elements necessary to sustain a
viable

Fed. R. Civ.

Ctr.

for

Choice,

Although a

complaint's

accept

as

allegation."

true

court

factual

a

legal

Papasan

v.

DISCUSSION

Clifton's
infliction

defamation

of

emotional

claim

distress

is
one

time-barred.
is

not.

His

Some

of

his

official-capacity contentions fail to state a claim.
I.

CLIFTON'S DEFAMA.TION CLAIM IS TIME-BABRED.

Clifton's

claim

is

defamation

subject

to

O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33.
No.

1.

made

or

No.

one-year

after

July

8,

that

the

17

at

statute

not pointed to

tolling

equitable
Dkt.

a

time-barred.

A

of

3-4;

Dkt.

2015.

No.

27

has

at

2016.

any defamatory

He

Court

defamation

limitations.

This suit was filed on July 8,

Clifton has

on

claim is

raises
not

10.

no

Dkt.

statement

reason

already

for

rejected.

Clifton's defamation

claim must be dismissed.
II.

CLIFTON'S

INTENTIONAL

INFLICTION

OF

EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS

of

emotional

distress

CLAIM IS NOT TIME-BARRED.

Clifton's

claim

is

timely.

distress

claim

limitations.

1338
341
in

(S.D.
(Ga.

part

872,

879

intentional

is

intentional

subject

Fitzpatrick v.

Ga.

2010)

Ct. App.
on

An

infliction

other

(Ga.

to

infliction

a

Harrison,

two-year
854

(citing Valades v.

2009)

Ct. App.

by

Harrison

2016)).

Again,

F.

Uslu,

(citing O.C.G.A.

grounds

of

v.

§

at

1-2.

statute

Supp.

of

2d 1334,

689 S.E.2d 338,

9-3-33),
McAfee,

overruled
788

S.E.2d

this suit was filed on

^ Defendants' motion is denied insofar as it was withdrawn,
against Sheriff Bohannon individually.

emotional

Dkt. No.

as to claims

20 at 16-18; Dkt. No.

30

July 8,

2016,

so the question is whether Clifton adequately

alleged any infliction of emotional distress dating from July
8, 2014 or later.

Dkt. No. 1.

Clifton was arrested on April

4, 2014, and his state criminal case was nol pressed on April
13,

2016.

Dkt.

contend that

No.

18 1 40;

No.

18 1

and that

No.

Clifton only alleges

indictment and arrest."

Dkt.

Dkt.

34;

Dkt.

No.

accord Dkt.

27 at 11.

wrongdoing

20 at 6.

No.

27

Defendants

^^prior to

This is incorrect.

at 10-11.

Given this,

Defendants concede the timeliness of Clifton's claim

insofar as it is against Sheriff Bohannon individually,
no.
III.

his

30 at 2,

dkt.

this claim survives.

SOME OF CLIFTON'S OFFICIJU^-CAPACITY CLAIMS FAIL.

Clifton's claims against Sheriff Bohannon in his official
capacity are dismissed.

Dkt. No. 27 at 12 (conceding these).

Clifton's claims against Powell in her official capacity,

particular Jeff Davis County Commissioners in their official
capacity,
''are

and

the

duplicative

Georgia

and

so

County,

173 F.

Twigqs County,
aff'd,
cf.

88

F.

Jeff
of

are
Supp.

182 F.

[his]

County

suit"

dismissed.
3d 1362,

Supp.

App'x 389

Franklin v.

Davis

Board

against
SP

1375

Jeff

Frederica,
(S.D.

2d 1253,

(11th Cir.

Ga.

1256-57

2003)

(N.D.N.Y.

Jan.

21,

Commissioners
Davis
LLC

2016);

(M.D.

County,
v.

Glynn

Gonser v.

Ga.

2002),

(unpublished table);

Warren County D.A.'s Office,

2009 WL 161314, at *5

of

No.

2009).

1:08-CV-801,

But Clifton's claims against Jeff Davis County,
survive.

Georgia

Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ''may be imposed for

a single decision by municipal policymakers" because even "a
single decision by its properly constituted legislative body
. . . unquestionably constitutes an act of official government

policy."
(1986) .

Pembaur v.
That

City of Cincinnati,

decision

need

not

even

475 U.S.

be

in

469,

480

writing.

Id.

Here, Clifton alleges that the Commissioners and Powell filed
the

incident

prosecute

report,

Clifton,

encouraged

and

prosecutors

interfered with

criminal investigation.

the

to

indict

and

prosecution

and

Dkt. No. 18 SISI 32, 34, 43, 52.

This

is enough to survive dismissal.
CONCLUSION

Clifton's

Renewed

Motion

for

Leave

to

File

an

Amended

Complaint, dkt. no. 19, is GRANTED.
Clifton's Motion to Add Defendant

Individual Capacity, dkt. no. 29,
Defendants'

Partial

Motion

is GRANTED.
to

Dismiss,

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
All

claims

against

Commissioners; Wooten,
their

official

the

Preston Bohannon in His

Jeff

Count
Davis

dkt.
III

capacities;

and

official capacity are DISMISSED.

Sheriff

20,

is

is DISMISSED.

County

Brantley, Marchant, Hall,

no.

Board

of

and Powell in

Bohannon

in

his

so ORDEBED, this 17th day of July,

2017.

HON#^LISA GODBE^ WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)