Jackson v. Cleveland et al
Filing
65
Opinion and Order. Defendants Estate of Eugene Terpay, Estate of James Farmer, Estate of John Staimpel and Estate of Peter Comodeca's Motion to Dismiss (Related doc # 37 ) is granted and First Amended Complaint is dismissed against the Estate Defendants without prejudice. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 10/20/2015. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICKY JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:15CV989
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion (ECF DKT #37) to Dismiss All
Claims Against Estate of Eugene Terpay, Estate of James Farmer, Estate of John Staimpel
and Estate of Peter Comodeca in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. For the following
reasons, the Motion is granted and the First Amended Complaint is dismissed against the
Estate Defendants without prejudice.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The captioned case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under state law against
the City of Cleveland and eight former detectives and/or sergeants who were allegedly
involved in the investigation of a 1975 murder that resulted in the prosecution and conviction
of Plaintiff, Ricky Jackson. Jackson was originally sentenced to death; but in 1978, his
sentence was commuted to life in prison. Edward Vernon, who was twelve years old at the
time of the murder, identified the perpetrators and testified at the trials of Jackson, Kwame
Ajamu (formerly Ronnie Bridgeman) and Wiley Bridgeman. In 2013, Vernon confessed to
his pastor that he was threatened and coerced by Defendant officers into testifying falsely
against Jackson, Ajamu and Bridgeman. At an evidentiary hearing in state court, Vernon
recanted and Jackson, Ajamu and Bridgeman were exonerated on November 21, 2014.
Jackson initiated the within lawsuit on May 19, 2015, claiming Brady violations;
fabrication of evidence; malicious prosecution; failure to intervene; conspiracy to deprive
Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights; supervisory liability; unconstitutional line-up
procedures; intentional infliction of emotional distress; civil conspiracy; respondeat superior
liability; indemnification; and negligent, willful, wanton and/or reckless conduct.
The Complaint named the Estate of Eugene Terpay, a detective who died on May 14,
2001. No probate estate was opened at that time because the decedent had no assets or
property that required probate administration.
The Complaint also named the Estate of James T. Farmer, a detective who died on
January 12, 2001. There was a final distribution of assets on February 24, 2003.
Another named Defendant is the Estate of John Staimpel, a detective who died on
May 2, 1979. His Estate was closed on November 16, 1981.
Jackson also sued the Estate of Peter F. Comodeca, a sergeant who died on October
18, 2013. The Estate was granted relief from administration on December 13, 2013.
The First Amended Complaint was filed on August 13, 2015; and that pleading named
the Estates again, and not any fiduciaries.
On August 20, 2015, the Estate Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (ECF DKT
#37), arguing that all of the claims alleged against the “Estates” must be dismissed for
insufficiency of service of process and for failure to state a claim. They argue that an estate is
not a legal entity with the capacity to be sued under federal and state law. Since none of the
-2-
Estates are open, none has an administrator or executor with the capacity to be sued or the
authority to accept service of process.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a) requires that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579
F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009). In deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6),
the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The court need not, however, accept
conclusions of law as true:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” As the Court held in [Bell Atlantic v.] Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
127 S.Ct. 1955 [(2007)], the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. at 555.
A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further
factual enhancement.” Id. at 557.
To survive a motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true,
are sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level...” and must do more than
allege the elements of a cause of action and come to legal conclusions. Id. Additionally, the
plaintiff must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. To state a claim that is
plausible on its face, the plaintiff must plead facts that would allow the court to reasonably
infer that the defendant is liable for the conduct the plaintiff alleges. In determining whether
this standard is met, the court must accept the factual allegations as true, but need not accept
-3-
legal conclusions. Id.
Normally, the Court is restricted to the “four corners” of the pleading; but the Sixth
Circuit permits consideration of public records (such as relevant probate court proceedings) or
other materials that are appropriate for the taking of judicial notice. See New England Health
Care Employees Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2003).
The question of whether a defendant is a proper party, with the capacity to be sued in
federal court, is governed by “the law of the state where the court is located.” Medlen v.
Estate of Meyers, 273 F.App’x 464, 470 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[t]o determine whether the Estate
was a proper party with the capacity to be sued, we must look to Ohio law...”); Fed.R.Civ.P.
17(b)(3). See also, Ward v. City of Norwalk, Case No. 3:13CV2210, 2014 WL 7175223
(N.D.Ohio July 3, 2014).
“An estate cannot sue or be sued; any action for or against it must be brought by or
against the executor or personal representative of the decedent. West v. West, Case No.
96APE11-1587, 1997 WL 559477 at *5 (Ohio App. 10th Sept. 2, 1997).
In the within case, the Estates of Terpay, Farmer, Staimpel and Comodeca are closed,
or were never opened. There are no executors or administrators with the capacity to be sued.
Because the status of the Estates is a matter of public record, Plaintiff was on notice at the
time the original Complaint was filed on May 19, 2015. When the First Amended Complaint
was filed, on August 13, 2015, Plaintiff again named the Estates and not any fiduciary
representatives. By Plaintiff’s own admission, he did not file the Applications to Reopen
Farmer’s, Staimpel’s and Comodeca’s Estates nor the Application to Appoint an
Administrator for Terpay’s Estate until September 1, 2015. The Cuyahoga County Probate
-4-
Court has scheduled a hearing; but no decision on those applications has yet been made.
III. CONCLUSION
The four named Estate Defendants are not entities with the capacity to be sued under
Ohio law. Therefore, the Motion (ECF DKT #37) to Dismiss All Claims Against Estate of
Eugene Terpay, Estate of James Farmer, Estate of John Staimpel and Estate of Peter
Comodeca in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is granted and the First Amended
Complaint is dismissed against the Estate Defendants without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: October 20, 2015
-5-
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?