Hankins v. Hazelwood, City of Missouri, et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 20 Second MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendant Michael Golden, Defendant Richard Berry, Defendant Jerry Fitzgerald, Defendant Hazelwood, Missouri, City of, Defendant Carl Wolf motion is GRANTED.IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs state law claims against defendant City of Hazelwood is DISMISSED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiffs state law claims against defendants Richard Berry, Michael Golden, Jerry Fitzgerald, and Carl Wolf in their official capacities are DISMISSED.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 3/13/14. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY HANKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF HAZELWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-CV-1691-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendants City of Hazelwood, Missouri,
Richard Berry, Michael Golden, Jerry Fitzgerald, and Carl Wolf’s Second Motion to
Dismiss (#21). This matter has been fully briefed and is now ripe for disposition.
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City, the City’s police chief
Carl Wolf, and police officers Richard Berry, Michael Golden, and Jerry Fitzgerald.
Plaintiff alleges that, among other things, police officers Berry, Golden, and Fitzgerald
violently assaulted him in the parking lot of the police station and falsely imprisoned him.
Plaintiff claims defendants Berry, Golden, and Fitzgerald are liable for assault, battery,
malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment in both their individual and official
capacities.
Plaintiff also claims that the City and Wolf are liable for the actions of defendants
Berry, Golden, and Fitzgerald under the theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiff also
states that Wolf is further “liable in his individual capacity for his own actions.”

(#15,

Am. Cmplt. ¶ 29.)

In addition, plaintiff claims that defendants Berry, Golden,

Fitzgerald, and the City are liable for violations of plaintiff’s Constitutional rights under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
Defendants move to dismiss the state law assault, battery, malicious prosecution,
and false imprisonment claims against the City and Wolf. Defendants also move to
dismiss the official capacity claims against defendants Berry, Golden, and Fitzgerald.
I.

Legal Standard
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to

test the legal sufficiency of a complaint so as to eliminate those actions “which are fatally
flawed in their legal premises and designed to fail, thereby sparing litigants the burden of
unnecessary pretrial and trial activity.” Young v. City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627
(8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989)). “To survive a
motion to dismiss, a claim must be facially plausible, meaning that the ‘factual content . .
. allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the respondent is liable for the
misconduct alleged.’” Cole v. Homier Dist. Co., Inc., 599 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court must “accept the
allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the nonmoving party.” Id. (quoting Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir.
2005)). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations
contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the

2

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
II.

Discussion
First, defendants contend that the state law claims against the City should be

dismissed. “The liability of a public entity for torts is the exception to the general rule of
immunity for tort and it is incumbent upon a plaintiff who seeks to state a claim for relief
to specifically allege facts establishing that an exception applies.” Boever v. Special Sch.
Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 296 S.W.3d 487, 491 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (quoting Best v.
Schoemehl, 652 S.W.2d 740, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983)). The City’s liability is alleged
to be based upon the theory of respondeat superior, but plaintiff pleads no facts showing
that an exception to sovereign immunity applies. In his response memorandum, plaintiff
states that he has alleged a policy and custom of failing to act upon prior similar
complaints of unconstitutional conduct; however, although that would be pertinent to a
discussion of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defendants have moved to dismiss the state
law claims against the City — not the Section 1983 claims. The state law claims against
the City are therefor dismissed.
Second, as to the state law claims against the individual defendants in their official
capacities, defendants contend that those claims must also be dismissed. “Sovereign
immunity, if not waived, bars suits against employees in their official capacity, as such
suits are essentially direct claims against the state.” State ex rel. Cravens v. Nixon, 234
S.W.3d 442, 449 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). Therefore, the state law causes of action against
the individual defendants in their official capacities fail for the same reason they fail
3

against the City. Plaintiff has failed to plead an exception to the application of sovereign
immunity.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s state law claims against defendant
City of Hazelwood is DISMISSED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff’s state law claims against defendants
Richard Berry, Michael Golden, Jerry Fitzgerald, and Carl Wolf in their official capacities
are DISMISSED.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2014.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
.

4