Swoboda v. Manders et al
Filing
74
RULING: The 32 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the defendants is granted in part. Plaintiff's false arrest, Eighth Amendment, false imprisonment, abuse of process and LUTPA claim are dismissed. Plaintiff is granted until October 23, 2015 to file an amended complaint which alleges specific facts to state such claims. Defendants may thereafter move to dismiss again. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/30/2015. (BCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL SWOBODA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-19-SCR
KARL MANDERS, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Before the court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
filed by defendants Karl Manders, Denise Mosteller, Jeremiah A.
Pastrick, Karla Bledsoe, and Continental Incorporated, Inc., d/b/a
Continental Enterprises. Record document number 32. The motion is
opposed.1
Defendants
moved
to
dismiss
the
plaintiff’s
claims
for
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, false imprisonment, abuse of process
and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.2
In
their motion the defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
violation
of
§
1983
or
false
imprisonment because the plaintiff did not: (1) allege facts to
1
Record document number 36.
Defendants
memorandum. Record document number 40.
2
filed
a
reply
These claims are alleged in Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the
complaint.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c),
Fed.R.Civ.P. is subject to the same standards applicable to a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted at
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Phillips v. City of Dallas, 781 F.3d 772, 775 (5th Cir. 2015).
show that Continental itself acted to violate his constitutional
rights; (2) allege facts indicating that the individual defendants
engaged in a conspiracy with state actors, or otherwise acted under
color of state law; and (3) allege facts to support his claim that
he was arrested without probable cause in violation of the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments.
Defendants argued the abuse of process
allegations are insufficient to state a claim because no facts are
alleged to support the allegation that they had an ulterior motive,
or committed willful irregularities in the proceedings following
the plaintiff’s arrest.
Finally, as to the plaintiff’s claim for
unfair trade practices under LSA-R.S. 51:1405, the defendants
argued the plaintiff does not allege any facts to show he has
standing under the statute as a competitor or consumer.
Plaintiff maintained that the allegations supporting Counts 1,
2, 5 and 6 of his complaint are sufficient to state a claim for
relief under the federal and state laws alleged.
However, in the
event the court finds merit in any of the defendants’ arguments,
the plaintiff argued that he should be granted leave to amend his
complaint to correct any deficiencies in his pleadings.
After review of the parties’ arguments and the record as a
whole, the court finds that the defendants are arguments are mostly
correct.
Under § 1983 respondeat superior liability does not apply.
Plaintiff argued that he does not rely only on that theory of
2
liability. Plaintiff argued that he alleged specific actions taken
by defendant Continental - “Defendant Continental launched and
orchestrated a fraudulent investigation which led to his unlawful
arrest.”3
The allegations in Complaint ¶¶ 11 - 13 support this
assertion.
Fairly read, these paragraphs allege that defendant
Continental itself was the moving force behind the violation of his
rights under the Constitution.
Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts, which accepted as true,
that show the defendants acted under color of law.
Admittedly,
there are no allegations, again accepted as true, showing that
state law enforcement officials were willing participants in a
conspiracy - an agreement with the defendants - to violate the
plaintiffs rights.
Plaintiff essentially alleged that state law
enforcement officers took actions based on information provided to
them by the defendants - not that the law enforcement officials did
so in furtherance of any agreement they had with the defendants to
secure the plaintiff’s unlawful arrest.
The most that can be
reasonably inferred from the plaintiff’s allegations is that the
defendants duped the law enforcement officials into taking actions
desired
by
the
defendants.
Broad
conspiracy
3
Record document number 36, p. 5.
4
Complaint, ¶¶ 32-36 .
3
allegations4
are
insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.5
Nonetheless,
the
plaintiff
alleged
that
the
individual
defendants did more that simply provide facts or an affidavit
law
enforcement
allegation,
he
officials.
alleged
Fairly
that
the
reading
defendants,
the
to
plaintiff’s
acting
through
Mosteller, essentially insinuated themselves into, became an active
part of, and used the law enforcement investigation to achieve
their goal of having the plaintiff arrested.
Or as the plaintiff
asserted, the defendants sought and obtained the assistance of law
enforcement
officials
as
part
of
their
own
investigation.6
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to allege actions under
color of law.
Whether the plaintiff can prove his allegations is
another matter.7
Accepting them as true, the plaintiff factual allegations are
5
Arseneaux
v.
Roberts,
726
F.2d
1022
(5th
Cir.
1982)(plaintiff must show defendants agreed to commit an illegal
act); Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 104 S.Ct. 2820 (1984)(more
than a blanket of accusation is needed to support a § 1983 claim).
6
Record document number 36, p. 8, n. 2.
7
For example, the plaintiff alleged that “agent Lovell agreed
to contact United States Customs officials so that the GSG shipment
would pass uninspected through customs agents.” Defendants noted
that there is no allegation that Lovell actually did contact
customs officials.
Complaint, ¶ 36. In contrast to these
allegations, in the preceding paragraph the plaintiff alleged that
defendant Mosteller asked Lovell to monitor the plaintiff’s flights
into the United States, and Lovell agreed to do so and then shared
information with the defendants. Complaint, ¶ 35. The absence of
an affirmative allegation that Lovell complied with the request to
contact customs officials at most creates uncertainty; it does not
imply that he did not.
4
not sufficient to state a claims based on an arrest without
probable
cause,
memorandum.8
for
The
the
reasons
Plaintiffs’
stated
Complaint
in
the
does
not
defendants’s
allege
what
defendant Mosteller stated in her affidavit of probable cause. All
the plaintiff alleged is that defendant Mosteller “misrepresented
facts, statements purportedly made by” the plaintiff and “the
arrest warrant was based on made deceitful statements and false/or
inaccurate information.”9
The actual arrest warrant was not filed
with the Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor was the language from it
alleged in the complaint.
Consequently, the plaintiff has not
alleged facts showing that “the warrant application is so lacking
in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its
existence unreasonable.”
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345,
106s.C. 1092, 1098 (1986).
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment, Excessive Bail clause, claim is
base on “information and belief” only.
The problem is that he did
not allege the “information” that supports his “belief.”
Absent
allegations containing the factual basis for his belief, he has not
alleged a claim upon which relief can be granted.
But even if the
defendants had acted in a manner intended to cause the plaintiff’s
bail to be set at a higher amount than it would have been without
their intervention, he did not allege that what they did affected
8
Record document number 36, pp. 9.
9
Complaint, ¶¶ 38, 73
5
the amount of his bail.
Logically, the plaintiff cannot state a
claims for Excessive Bail when he does not allege that the actual
bail was, in fact, excessive.
And as the defendants correctly
argued, they are not responsible for setting the plaintiff’s bail.
Plaintiff also relied on allegations that defendant Mosteller
attempted to persuade a detective and the District Attorney to
charge the plaintiff with forgery.10
Plaintiff did not allege that
he was actually charged with forgery.
Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts that state a false
imprisonment claim.
Defendants did not arrest or imprison him.
That the arrest caused the plaintiff to be held in official
detention for a period of time does not state a claim for false
imprisonment against the defendants.
Plaintiff’s time in official
detention may an element of damages cause by a false arrest,
assuming he could prove that claim.
Plaintiff has not stated a claim for abuse of process because
he has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for false
arrest.
Moreover, he did not allege that any specific court-
related process or proceeding was used by the defendants, or was
otherwise employed against him, after he was arrested.
Plaintiff
alleged that he was held in a county detention processing center
for about 20 hours, was transferred to detention center where he
10
Record document number 36, p. 10, citing Complaint, ¶¶ 50
and 51.
6
stayed for the weekend, and then was released on bail.11
Plaintiff
did not allege that this procedure was irregular unusual or out of
the ordinary in any way, nor that the defendants had any control
over where he was detained or for how long.
For the reasons argued by the defendants, the plaintiff did
not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the
LUTPA.
Accordingly, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by
the defendants is granted in part.
Plaintiff’s false arrest,
Eighth Amendment, false imprisonment, abuse of process and LUTPA
claim are dismissed. Plaintiff is granted until October 23,2015 to
file an amended complaint which alleges specific facts to state
such claims.
Defendants may thereafter move to dismiss again.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 30, 2015.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
Complaint, ¶ 48.
7
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?