Ayers v. Anderson et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/13/2020: The Court will dismiss Plaintiff's sole remaining claim with prejudice DN 67 . A separate order will be entered this date in accordance with this memorandum opinion. cc: counsel (SRH)

Case 3:16-cv-00572-CRS-RSE Document 69 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 255

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

WILLIAM AYERS

PLAINTIFF

vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-572-CRS

TIM ANDERSON, et al.

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s filing of a letter stating that he decided to
“quit this claim and make no further efforts at it.” DN 67. Defendants did not file a response. This
matter is now ripe for adjudication.
I. Background
Defendants are employees of the Kentucky Department of Corrections, Division of
Probation and Parole (“Probation”). DN 7 at 1. William Ayers (“Ayers”) was convicted of a felony
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for failing to file state income tax returns. DN 35 at 1. Ayers
was sentenced to five years of supervised probation with a variety of conditions, including the
payment of court costs, a fine, and the completion of 100 community service hours. DN 35 at 1.
Ayers did not comply with the conditions of his probation, and on February 24, 2015, Judge Susan
Schultz Gibson of the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Kentucky, set additional deadlines for
compliance. DN 30-2 at 1-3. In her order, Judge Gibson also authorized Probation to “impose
graduated sanctions pursuant to KRS 439.553 for violation of the conditions of probation.” DN
22-1 at 11.
On September 15, 2015, Ayers reported to Probation Officer Tim Anderson (“Anderson”)
at a time when he “was in violation of probation…for not completing Community Service on
time.” DN 59 at 2. Ayers alleges that, while he was in the Probation office, Anderson and another

Case 3:16-cv-00572-CRS-RSE Document 69 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 256

probation officer “grab[ed] Plaintiff without his permission, and twisted his arms behind his back
and placed hand-cuffs on his wrists, and pushed him down onto a chair causing pain and
humiliation.” DN 1-1 at 1. Ayers was arrested and detained on a probation violation detainer. DN
22-1 at 7. Ayers remained in custody until September 23, 2015, when he appeared before Judge
Gibson and was released. DN 30-4 at 1.
Ayers, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in this Court on Sep 8, 2016 against Defendants
Tim Anderson, Bob Rodriguez, and unnamed Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe. DN 1 at 1. In
his complaint, Ayers made the following claims based on his arrest and detention: Fourth
Amendment unreasonable search and seizure, Fourteenth Amendment due process, Eighth
Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, extreme emotional distress,
defamation per se, assault and battery. On March 22, 2018, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims. DN 38. On January 14, 2020, this Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment,
extreme emotional distress, and defamation per se claims. DN 62. Plaintiff’s only remaining claim
is for assault and battery.
II. Discussion
On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court for the purpose of “inform[ing] the
parties of Ayers’ decision to quit this claim and make no further efforts at it.” DN 67. Rule 41(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a court may dismiss an action “at the plaintiff’s
request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper” and that “[i]f a defendant has
pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may
be dismissed over the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending for
independent adjudication.”

2

Case 3:16-cv-00572-CRS-RSE Document 69 Filed 07/14/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 257

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s “quit claim” letter as a motion to dismiss. As there are no
pending counterclaims or objections by Defendants, this Court finds that it is proper to dismiss
Plaintiff’s remaining claim with prejudice pursuant to the Court's authority under Rule 41(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim with
prejudice. DN 67. A separate order will be entered this date in accordance with this memorandum
opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 13, 2020

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

3