Gibbs v. City of New Madrid et al

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Sixth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 4/17/2018. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
GARRY D. GIBBS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW MADRID, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:15CV88 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Sixth Amended
1

Complaint by Defendants Troopers D.L. DeJournett and C.L. Purnell (collectively "Troopers").
(ECF No. 91) The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. Upon review of the motion
and related memoranda, the Court will grant the Troopers' motion to dismiss.

I. Background
The Court stated the background of this case in its Memorandum and Order of April 17,
2018 addressing the motion to dismiss by Defendants City of New Madrid, Anthony Roberts,
Claude Mcferren, Dave Simmons, John Dubois, and Ruben White. The Court incorporates
those facts by reference as if fully set forth herein. With respect to the Troopers, Plaintiff raises
only one claim against them, Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment Rights in
Count II of the Sixth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the Troopers and other
individual Defendants reached a mutual understanding in a meeting and conspired to violate
Plaintiffs civil rights. (Sixth Amended Complaint

["SAC"]~

64, ECF No. 86) In furtherance,

Plaintiff claims that the Troopers witnessed the force used against Plaintiff and failed to

1

Defendants' Motion erroneously refers to Plaintiffs Fifth Amended Complaint; however, their
Memorandum in Support correctly references the Sixth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 92)

intervene. (Id. at iii! 41-42, 48, 64(b)) The Troopers have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that
Plaintiff has failed to state claim for conspiracy.

II. Legal Standard
With regard to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)( 6), a complaint must be dismissed if it fails to plead "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007) (abrogating the "no set of facts" standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 4546 (1957)). While the Supreme Court cautioned that the holding does not require a heightened
fact pleading of specifics, "a plaintiffs obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment]
to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. In other words, "[f]actual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .... " Id. This standard simply calls for
enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the claim.
Id. at 556.
Courts must liberally construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
and accept the factual allegations as true. See Id. at 555; see also Schaaf v. Residential Funding
Corp., 517 F .3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that in a motion to dismiss, courts accept as
true all factual allegations in the complaint); Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th
Cir. 2008) (explaining that courts should liberally construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff). Further a court should not dismiss the complaint simply because the
court is doubtful that the plaintiff will be able to prove all of the necessary factual allegations.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. However, "[w]here the allegations show on the face of the complaint
there is some insuperable bar to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate." Benton v.

2

Merrill Lynch & Co., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Courts '"are not
bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). When considering a motion to
dismiss, a court can "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 679. Legal conclusions must be
supported by factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss. Id.

III. Discussion
Defendant Troopers argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts against them
to state a claim for conspiracy such that dismissal under rule 12(b)( 6) is appropriate. The Court
agrees. To adequately allege a § 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing a
mutual understanding or meeting of the minds between the alleged conspirators. Brown v. City

of Pine Lawn, Mo., No. 4:17CV01542 ERW, 2018 WL 950211, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2018)
(citation omitted). Unlike the City Officers, Plaintiffs complaint provides no specific factual
allegations that the Troopers were present at the meeting conducted by the City of New Madrid
Police Chief Claude Mcferren. (SAC if 34) Plaintiff claims that his complaint inherently
includes Defendants DeJournett and Purnell as members of those in attendance. However,
Plaintiffs complaint alleges no facts which would allow the Court to infer that these specific
Troopers had a "meeting of the minds" with any other alleged conspirator to violate Plaintiffs
constitutional rights. The only allegations against the Troopers are that they failed to act during
Plaintiffs arrest. This is insufficient for a conspiracy claim. See Kalu v. Brooklyn Park

Police/Fed'n, No. CV 15-112 (SRN/JJK), 2015 WL 5719462, at *8 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2015)
(dismissing plaintiffs conspiracy claim where the complaint failed to allege a meeting of the
minds among the specific defendants or any defendant and another person and merely alleged

3

that defendant officers falsely arrested plaintiff). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed
to state a plausible conspiracy claim against the Troopers, and dismissal under Rule 12(b)( 6) is
warranted.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Sixth Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this
Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 17th day of April, 2018.

~~
~EL.WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4