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)
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?