Anderson v. Mizell et al
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER--HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants St. Louis County, Missouri and Norman Mizell's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3] be DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts III andV [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 09/06/2012. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., )
No. 4:12CV56 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants St. Louis County, Missouri and
Norman Mizell’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3] filed on March 19,
2012, and its subsequent Motion to Dismiss Counts III and V [ECF No. 11] filed on May
18, 2012. Plaintiff Ryan Anderson did not respond to either motion; however, he did file
an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 9] on May 16, 2012.
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3]
As addressed above, subsequent to Defendants’ March 19, 2012 Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 3], Plaintiff Anderson–with the Court’s permission (See ECF No. 8]–filed an
Amended Complaint [ECF No. 9]. As such, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is deemed
Motion to Dismiss Counts III and V [ECF No. 11]
Defendants move to dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,
which alleges conspiracy. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s Count III-“Conspiracy”
claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They further allege that
Count V–“Negligent Supervision” fails to state a claim against Defendant St. Louis
County upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff Anderson did not file opposition to
In L.L. Nelson Enterprises, Inc., v. County of St. Louis, 673 F.3d 799, 812 (8th
Cir.2012), the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine
and opined that a local government entity cannot conspire with itself through its agents
acting within the scope of their employment. Said doctrine rings true here, as Defendant
Mizell cannot conspire with his employer, St. Louis County. As such, Plaintiff’s Count III
fails. Plaintiff’s Count V also fails. Plaintiff contends that St. Louis County knew or
should have known that their employee, Defendant Mizell, had a history of violent
behavior and misconduct. Under Section 537.600 R.S.Mo., Defendant St. Louis County
possesses governmental immunity and cannot be liable for negligence unless its immunity
is waived by one of the statute’s exceptions. None of those exceptions are present here,
nor does Plaintiff allege they are. As such, Count V fails.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants St. Louis County, Missouri and
Norman Mizell’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3] be DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counts III and
V [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED.
Dated this 6th day of September, 2012.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?