Northrup et al v. City of Brunswick, Georgia et al
Filing
15
ORDER granting Defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Brunswick, Georgia Police Department and Glynn County, Georgia Police Department are therefore dismissed. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 2/5/2018. (csr)
3in t^e tinitetr States! IBtie(tnct Court
for tfie ^outliem IBtotrirt of <@eorsta
Pmnotoitft IBtbiOtott
JULIE NORTHRUP and RICKARD
SCRUGGS,
Plaintiffs,
NO:
V.
CITY OF BRUNSWICK,
CITY OF BRUNSWICK,
POLICE DEPARTMENT;
GEORGIA;
GEORGIA,
KEVIN JONES,
individually and in his
official capacity as Chief of
Police of the City of Brunswick
Police Department; PAUL GEORGE,
individually and in his
official capacity as a police
officer of the City of
Brunswick Police Department;
GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; GLYNN
COUNTY, GEORGIA POLICE
DEPARTMENT; MATTHEW J. DOERING,
individually and in his
official capacity as Chief of
Police of the Glynn County
Police Department; CHAD
LOWTHER, individually and in
his official capacity as a
police officer of the Glynn
County Police Department;
ANTHONY CLARK, individually and
in his official capacity as a
police officer of the Glynn
County Police Department; CORY
MALLARD, individually and in
his official capacity as a
police officer of the Glynn
County Police Department; and
JOHN DOE, individually and in
his official capacity as a
A0 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
217-CV-126
police officer of the Glynn
County Police Department,
Defendants.
ORDER
This
Brunswick,
matter
comes
before
the
Court
Georgia Police Department,
Police Department's Rule 12(b)(6)
on
Defendants'
City of
and Glynn County,
Georgia
Motion to Dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Dkt. No.
This Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.^
the reasons stated below,
7.
For
the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
At this stage of the case, the allegations of the complaint
are accepted as true pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
On
January
Defendant
George
18,
stopped
2017
a
at
2013
approximately
P.M.,
Avalanche
Chevrolet
2:19
which
Scruggs was driving and in which Northrup was a passenger.
No.
1
15,
16.
Defendant George asserted that he stopped the
vehicle because he had reason to believe the
license plate was
registered to a
vehicle other than the Avalanche.
17.
George
Defendant
registration
No.
1
55
Dkt.
examined
Scruggs'
license
and
insurance
information
on
20-22.
Defendant
George
asked
then
Dkt.
the
No.
15
and
the
Avalanche.
Dkt.
Scruggs
and
then
^ The pending Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Complaint, dkt. no. 14, does not
affect the Court's analysis herein.
Both the Complaint as it presently
stands and the would-be Amended Complaint name as Defendants the Glynn County
Police Department and the Brunswick Police Department.
Northrup if they would consent to him searching the Avalanche.
Dkt.
No.
1
Defendant
vehicle.
Unit.
at
mi
26-29.
George
ordered
Dkt. No.
Dkt.
No.
Neither consented.
both
Dkt.
No.
to
stand
Plaintiffs
1
21,29,
behind
the
1 5 30. Defendant George then requested a K-9
1
5
approximately
34.
Additional
2:31
P.M.
Dkt.
officers arrived on the
No.
1
5
45.
scene
Defendant
George
stated to Defendant Clark, Mallard, or Doe that he had initially
stopped the Avalanche because the tag did not match, but that he
must
have
because
entered
it
did
in
the
tag
fact
number
match
the
incorrectly
second time.
the
Dkt.
Defendant George stated that he ^'believed that
first
No.
1
[Scruggs]
time
5
45.
was on
probation, which would allow [him] to perform a Fourth Amendment
search on him." Dkt.
Dkt.
No.
Clark,
1
5
51.
Mallard,
No.
1 5 46.
Shortly
or
Doe
Scruggs was not on probation.
thereafter.
arrived
on
the
Lowther handling the K-9 police dog.
Lowther
ordered
approximately
the
2:53
contraband
on
Avalanche.
Dkt.
released.
Dkt.
to
42
rights.
U.S.C.
P.M.;
the
dog
1
5
1983
55
55,
scene,
Dkt.
sniff
the
1
around
persons
58,
59,
with
Defendant
Defendant
the
Avalanche
alerted
nor
and
1 5 48.
No.
neither
Lowther
in
61.
or
to
at
drugs
around
Plaintiffs
or
the
were
65.
brought
§
to
Plaintiffs'
No.
No.
Plaintiffs
dog
Defendants
this
for
claim against
alleged
Defendants
violations
Defendants City of Brunswick,
of
pursuant
their
civil
Georgia Police Department
and
Glynn
County,
Georgia
Police
Department
moved
for
the
that
the
complaint to be dismissed as to them. Dkt. No. 7.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
8(a)
requires
plaintiffs' complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed. R.
Civ.
brought
P.
8(a).
When
ruling
pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6),
the
facts
set
forth
in
on
the
701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010).
state a
factual
complaint
favor.
to
dismiss
and
draw
Randall v.
all
reasonable
Scott,
610 F.3d
Although a complaint need not contain
allegations,
it must
contain ^'enough
facts
claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly,
''A claim has
factual
motion
a district court must accept as true
inferences in the plaintiffs'
detailed
a
content
inference
alleged."
544,
570
Bell
(2007).
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
that
that
550 U.S.
to
the
Ashcroft
allows
the
defendant
v.
Iqbal,
court
is
556
to
liable
U.S.
draw
for
662,
the
the
678
reasonable
misconduct
(2009).
The
Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and draws
all
reasonable
Spirit
inferences
Airlines,
Inc.,
836
in
favor
F.3d
of
1340,
the
plaintiff.
1347
(11th
Cir.
Ray
v.
2016).
However, the Court does not accept as true threadbare recitations
of
the
elements
of
the
unsupported by factual
claim and disregards
allegations.
Iqbal,
legal
556 U.S.
conclusions
at
678-79.
At
a
minimum,
inferential
a
complaint
allegations
should
either
all
respecting
''contain
material
the
direct
or
elements
necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory."
Fin. Sec. Assurance,
83
(11th Cir. 2007)
for Choice,
Inc.,
Inc. v. Stephens,
(per curiam)
253 F.3d 678,
Inc.,
500 F.3d 1276, 1282-
(quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr.
683
(11th Cir. 2001)).
DISCUSSION
Defendants
Brunswick
Police
Department
and
Glynn
County
Police Department filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s complaint
for failure to state a claim.
Defendants argue that the action
is subject to dismissal against the "City of Brunswick,
Police
Department and Glynn County,
Georgia
Georgia Police Department,"
because such defendants are not legal entities capable of being
sued. Dkt. No.
In
order
7 p.
to
3.
state
a
claim
for
relief
Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements.
allege
that
an
act
or
omission
deprived
under
First,
them
§
1983,
Plaintiffs must
"of
some
right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States." Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty.,
Cir.
1995).
Second,
50 F.3d 1579, 1582
(11th
that act or omission must have been committed
by "a person acting under color of state law." Id.
Here,
the issue is whether the Brunswick Police Department
and the Glynn County Police Departments are "persons" capable of
being sued under Georgia law.
The "capacity to sue or be sued
shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district
court is held .
law,
the
.
.
Georgia
^^recognizes
Supreme
only three
natural persons;
(3)
Fed. R.
(2)
Civ. P. 17(b). Looking to Georgia
Court
classes
as
has
explained
legal
that
entities,
an artificial person
Georgia
namely:
(1)
(a corporation);
and
such quasi-artificial persons as the law recognizes as being
capable to sue." Ga. Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Elbert Cty., 368
S.E.2d
500,
502
(1988)
(quotation
omitted).
Police
departments
and sheriff's departments are not one of the three legal entities
subject to suit. See Lovelace v. Dekalb Cent. Prob., 144 F. App'x
793, 795 (11th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,
1214
(''We
(llth
Cir.
departments
and
1992))
police
have
observed
departments
are
not
that
'[s]heriff's
usually
considered
legal entities subject to suit.'").
"Accordingly,
Glynn
County
Plaintiff[s]
Police
cannot state a claim against the
Department
.
.
.
,
as
the
Glynn
County
Police Department is merely the vehicle through which the county
governs
Cty.
is
and
Police
the
is
not
Dep't,
Brunswick
a
proper
2007
WL
Police
party
4287717,
Brunswick Police Dep't,
Ga.
report
(S.D.
Ga.
2017).
and
at
Department
Franklin v.
2017),
defendant."
*2
a
(S.D.
proper
Clark
Ga.
adopted,
2017
Glynn
2007).
Defendant.
2017 WL 4448236,
recommendation
v.
at *3
WL
Nor
See
(S.D.
6045443
CONCLUSION
For these
20),
of
reasons.
is hereby GRANTED,
Brunswick,
Georgia
Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss
(Dkt.
and Plaintiff's claims against the City
Police
Department
and
the
Glynn
County,
Georgia Police Department are therefore dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2018.
HON. K.ISA'GOlTBEYl WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
A0 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
No.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons.
7),
of
is hereby GRANTED,
Brunswick,
Georgia
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt.
and Plaintiff's claims against the City
Police
Department
and
the
Glynn
County,
Georgia Police Department are therefore dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February,
2018.
HON.«
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?