Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol et al
Filing
80
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri State Highway Patrols Motion to Dismiss Counts I-VI of the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 63] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J.A. Ashbys Motion to Dismiss Counts I-VI of the Second Amended Complaint in his official capacity and Count V of the Second Amended Complaint in his personal capacity [Doc. No. 65] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brent Fowlers Motion to Dismiss Counts I-VI of t he Second Amended Complaint in his official capacity and Count V of the Second Amended Complaint in his personal capacity [Doc. No. 67] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants MSHPs, Ashbys, and Fowlers previous Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. Nos. 34, 36, and 38, respectively] will be denied as moot. 67 63 36 38 65 34 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 1/8/19. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
LAVOY STEED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY
PATROL, et al.,
Defendants,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:17CV1440 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Partial Motions to Dismiss made by
three Defendants: the Missouri State Highway Patrol [Doc. No. 63], J.A. Ashby
[Doc. No. 65], and Brent Fowler [Doc. No. 67]. Defendant Missouri State
Highway Patrol [“MSHP”] moves to be dismissed as a defendant from Counts I-VI
of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [“SAC”] [Doc. No. 54]. Defendants
J.A. Ashby and Brent Fowler both move to be dismissed in their official capacity
from Counts I-VI of the SAC, and also to be dismissed in their personal capacity
from Count V of the SAC. Plaintiff opposes the Motions. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motions are granted.
Additionally, Defendants MSHP’s, Ashby’s, and Fowler’s previous Motions
to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No’s. 34, 36, and 38, respectively]
will be denied as moot by the filing of the SAC.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
The essential facts alleged in the SAC are as follows:
On May 11, 2014 Plaintiff Lavoy Steed was killed when the vehicle in
which he was traveling as a passenger crashed during a high-speed police chase.
Counts I-IV and VI each allege a violation of constitutional rights actionable
under § 1983, “against all defendants.” Count V alleges a violation of municipal
liability pursuant to Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658 (1978), “against all defendants.” Counts VII and VIII, which are not at issue
here, allege negligence under Missouri statute.
Standard of Review
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 deigned to fail, thereby
sparing the litigants the burden of unnecessary pretrial and trial activity.” Young v.
City of St. Charles, 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Discussion
Proper parties to a § 1983 action
Section 1983 of Title 42 provides, “[e]very person who, under color of [law]
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable....”
“Section 1983 provides a cause of action against ‘persons' only.” Barket,
Levy & Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th
Cir.1991). For purposes of § 1983, a state is not a “person.” Will v. Michigan
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). See also Aubuchon v. State of Mo., 631
F.2d 581, 582 (8th Cir. 1980) (“[Section] 1983 is directed at individuals acting
under color of state law, not individual states. The State of Missouri is not a proper
party to an action brought under §1983.”)
Suit against a state instrumentality qualifies an action against the state itself,
and therefore, for purposes of § 1983, a state agency or instrumentality is not a
“person.” See Stanton v. Johnson, 13 Fed. Appx. 441, 441 (8th Cir.2001)
(“[A]bsent waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, neither state nor its agencies
may be subject to suit in federal court.”) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)).
Finally, a § 1983 claim cannot generally be brought against a state official in
their “official” capacity. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that “neither a State
nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will,
491 U.S. at 71. However, § 1983 suits can be brought against state officials acting
in their “individual” (or “personal”) capacity.
Application of these principles to Defendants’ Motions
Defendant MSHP argues that Counts I-VI should be dismissed as to it
because it is a state agency and therefore not subject to liability under § 1983.
Indeed, the MSHP is an instrumentality of the state of Missouri, thus a suit against
the MSHP qualifies as an action against the state. Plaintiffs cannot bring a § 1983
suit against the MSHP because they are not “persons” under § 1983. Counts I-VI
against Defendant MSHP will be dismissed.
Defendants Ashby and Fowler assert that the claims made against them “in
their official capacity” in Counts I-VI should be dismissed. As officers of the
MSHP, Ashby and Fowler are state officials and may not be sued under § 1983 in
their official capacities. The claims made against Ashby and Fowler in their
official capacities in Counts I-VI will be dismissed.
For Count V, Ashby and Fowler also move to dismiss the claims made
against them in their personal capacities. Count V alleges Monell liability. In
Monell, the Supreme Court clarified that local governmental entities and officials
do qualify as “persons” and therefore may be sued under § 1983 if it is alleged that
an official policy or custom “is responsible for a deprivation of rights protected by
the Constitution.” 436 U.S. at 690–92. Monell is relevant only when bringing a
§1983 action against a local government, a local governmental entity, or a local
government official in their official capacity. As state officials, neither Ashby nor
Fowler is subject to Monell liability. The claims made against Ashby and Fowler
in their personal capacities in Count V will be dismissed.
The claims made against Ashby and Fowler in their personal capacities in
Counts I-IV and VI remain.
Conclusion
Defendants’ position as to their improper inclusion in certain § 1983 claims,
described in the foregoing, are well taken. With respect to the specific Defendants
and specific Counts enumerated here, no liability under § 1983 is legally possible.
Defendants’ Partial Motions to Dismiss will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri State Highway
Patrol’s Motion to Dismiss Counts I-VI of the Second Amended Complaint [Doc.
No. 63] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J.A. Ashby’s Motion to
Dismiss Counts I-VI of the Second Amended Complaint in his official capacity
and Count V of the Second Amended Complaint in his personal capacity [Doc. No.
65] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brent Fowler’s Motion to
Dismiss Counts I-VI of the Second Amended Complaint in his official capacity
and Count V of the Second Amended Complaint in his personal capacity [Doc. No.
67] is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants MSHP’s, Ashby’s, and
Fowler’s previous Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No’s.
34, 36, and 38, respectively] will be denied as moot.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2019.
___________________________________
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?