Graves et al v. Mahoning County et al
Filing
136
Memorandum Opinion and Order: At this late date, the Court will not permit the addition of parties (neither plaintiffs nor defendants). The motion to strike (Doc. No. 121 ) is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complain t, by no later than March 14, 2014, to narrow both the issues and the parties consistent with the representations made to the Court during the CMC and in light of the claims that survived the appeal. Thereafter, defendants shall have until April 4, 2 014 to file responsive pleadings. Should the responsive pleadings be in the form of dispositive motions, any opposition shall be filed by May 2, 2014 and replies, if any, by May 14, 2014. Briefing on plaintiffs' intended renewed motion for clas s certification shall be held in abeyance until any preliminary dispositive motions are resolved. At an appropriate time, if necessary, the Court will reconvene the CMC to configure the final Case Management Plan. (Related Doc # 129 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 2/28/2014. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHANNON GRAVES, et al.,
PLAINTIFFS,
vs.
MAHONING COUNTY, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:10CV2821
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Before the Court is the motion of several defendants (“movants”)1 to strike the
amended complaint. (Doc. No. 121.) Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. No. 122), and movants
filed a reply (Doc. No. 128).2
For the reasons and in the manner discussed below, the motion to strike is
GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case has a lengthy history relating, in particular, to the complaint itself.3
On December 14, 2010, nine plaintiffs (Shannon Graves, Michelle Benner,
Amber Sexton, Nicole Montecalvo, April Ellis, Amanda Wallace, Erica Jackson, Mary Pratt, and
1
The motion was filed by defendants Mahoning County, Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains, Mahoning
County Assistant Prosecutor Ken Cardinal, Mahoning County Clerk of Court Anthony Vito, former Mahoning
County Sheriff Randall Wellington, and Mahoning County Sheriff’s Deputy E. Mitchell. All of the individual
defendants, both in the original complaint and in the amended complaint are sued only in their official capacities.
2
Plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply. (Doc. No. 129.) There has been no opposition to this
motion; however, the Court perceives no need for the sur-reply. Plaintiffs’ motion is, therefore, DENIED.
3
The underlying facts alleged in the complaint are not relevant for purposes of the instant motion, which involves
strictly procedural matters. That said, the gravamen of the complaint is that each plaintiff has suffered a violation of
the Fourth Amendment right to be protected from arrest without a prior independent probable cause determination.
Trisha Narkum) filed a verified complaint against ten defendants (Mahoning County, Austintown
Township, Beaver Township, Boardman Township, Goshen Township, Green Township,
Jackson Township, Milton Township, Smith Township, and Springfield Township). (Doc. No.
1.)
The case was originally assigned to Judge David D. Dowd, Jr., who subsequently
recused himself. On April 4, 2011, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judicial officer.
Shortly before his recusal, Judge Dowd granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the
complaint. (Doc. No. 41.) On April 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint (Doc.
No. 48), which was later stricken by order of this Court on defendants’ motion to strike. The
Court found that the first amended complaint exceeded the scope of the leave to amend that had
been granted by Judge Dowd. Plaintiffs were granted seven (7) days to file a first amended
complaint that would comport with the representations made to Judge Dowd in the motion to
amend and its tendered draft complaint. The order specified that, if the proper amended
complaint was not filed within seven days, the case would proceed on the basis of the original
complaint. (Doc. No. 84.)
Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within the 7-day window. Instead, on
September 30, 2011, without seeking leave and after defendants had already filed motions to
dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 94),4 asserting that they did so “once as
a matter of course” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants again moved to strike
and, on October 7, 2011, the Court granted that motion. (Doc. No. 97.)
4
The amended complaint, as originally filed (Doc. No. 90), did not conform to electronic filing requirements to
separately identify each exhibit. Plaintiffs’ counsel was advised by the Clerk’s Office on October 3, 2011 to refile
the amended complaint. He did so as Doc. No. 94.
2
On November 28, 2011, the Court ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Doc.
No. 103.) The Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of Graves and Sexton, dismissed the
abuse of process claim in Count 4 for failure to state a claim,5 and stayed all remaining claims
pending resolution of related state court actions. Plaintiffs filed an appeal.6 The Sixth Circuit
“reverse[d] the . . . dismissal of Graves’s and Sexton’s claims and remand[ed] the case for
further proceedings.” Graves v. Mahoning County, 534 F. App’x 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2013).7
Following remand, the Court conducted the Case Management Conference
(“CMC”). Because “[p]laintiffs’ counsel agreed that the issues in the case are very narrow and
that all would be well-served by a more thoughtfully crafted complaint[,]” (Doc. No. 118 at
2282), the Court granted leave to file an amended complaint by December 17, 2013, “nam[ing]
parties and address[ing] issues as narrowly as possible[.]” (Id.)8
5
Specifically, the Court ruled that the abuse of process claim was dismissed with prejudice because plaintiffs’
allegation that their arrests were without probable cause was inconsistent with the elements of an abuse of process
claim, in particular, a showing that a legal proceeding was set in motion in proper form and with probable cause.
(Doc. No. 103 at 2236-37.)
6
Defendants, except for Smith Township, also filed a cross-appeal. The Sixth Circuit ruled it did not have
jurisdiction over the cross-appeal.
7
The Sixth Circuit also noted that it need not address whether this Court properly applied Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 43 (1971) to stay the portions of the case that were not dismissed since, during the pendency of the appeal,
all state court cases had been terminated.
It is not entirely clear how or whether the Sixth Circuit ruled with respect to this Court’s dismissal of the
abuse of process claim for failure to state a claim. Although the court mentioned that count of the complaint and
noted that this Court had dismissed it, when it actually reached “the merits of plaintiffs’ appeal” in Section III of its
opinion, it discussed only this Court’s dismissal of Graves’s and Sexton’s claims under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994), and under res judicata. It appears from the Sixth Circuit’s opinion that plaintiffs’ challenge with respect
to the abuse of process claim was that it had been dismissed “without allowing plaintiffs to amend their
complaint[.]” Graves, 534 F. App’x at 403. When addressing the “other issues” raised in plaintiffs’ appeal, such as
the “denial of the . . . motion to amend the complaint[,]” id. at 404, the Sixth Circuit concluded that it had no
jurisdiction because the rulings on these “other issues” were not final orders. Id. The currently challenged amended
complaint (Doc. No. 119) still contains an abuse of process claim, albeit in substantially different form than the
original complaint. It also still contains allegations of arrest without probable cause, which remain inconsistent with
the elements of an abuse of process claim.
8
In a footnote, the Court stated: “Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that the issues are narrow, given the recent rulings by
the Seventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio in State of Ohio v. Jones, No. 11 MA 60, 2012 WL 1035017 (Ohio
Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2012) and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Graves v. Mahoning County, Nos. 12-3477/114409, 2013 WL 4105653 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2013).” (Doc. No. 118 at 2282, n.1.)
3
On December 17, 2013, plaintiffs filed the amended complaint challenged by the
instant motion to strike. The amended complaint (Doc. No. 119) omitted one of the nine original
plaintiffs (Erica Jackson), but added twelve new plaintiffs (Stephanie Yash, Stephanie McCourt,
Jessica Taylor, Christopher Petko, Marvin Brown, Francine DeFrank, Bobby Burkey, Korie Ball,
Roy Jackson, Joel Gonzalez, Sergio Rivera, and Darryl Jackson), all of whom had previously
been added by way of the first amended complaint that was later stricken. The amended
complaint also added as defendants two more townships (Sebring Township and Canfield
Township),9 two more cities (City of Canfield and City of Struthers), twenty more individuals
(Paul Gains, Ken Cardinal, Anthony Vivo, Randall Wellington, E. Mitchell, Jeff Solic, Kathy
Dina, Kal Adorjan, Eric Datillo, Patrick Klingensmith, Timothy Hughes, Joseph O’Grady, Don
Hawkins, Glen Riddle, Craig Crider, Joel Gensler, Dan Guy, William Faudree, Lance Malone,
Jeff Pantall – all in their individual capacities only), and “Does 1 through 100,” all of whom had
previously been added as defendants by way of the first amended complaint that was later
stricken.
II. DISCUSSION
Movants challenge the amended complaint filed on December 17, 2013, because
it is “strikingly similar to the Complaint previously stricken two separate times by this Court.”
(Doc. No. 121 at 2546.) They ask the Court to “strike the Amended Complaint as it pertains to
the newly named Mahoning County Defendants for the same reasons this Court struck the same
complaint on August 23, 2011 and October 7, 2011.” (Id.)10
9
Even though these two townships were added, they joined the ranks of three of the originally named townships
(Green Township, Jackson Township, and Smith Township) --for a total of five townships -- against whom there
were no allegations of wrongdoing set forth in either the original complaint or the amended complaint.
10
In the alternative, movants ask to be given an opportunity to properly oppose plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend
their complaint. This strikes the Court as an exercise in futility.
4
In opposition to the motion to strike, plaintiffs argue that they have “narrowed the
issues[,]” (Doc. No. 122 at 2550), and “focused their complaint on the clerks’ lack of
qualifications and the use of a criminal complaint (without supporting affidavit), which merely
recited the elements of the crime, to support the arrest warrants.” (Id.) They further argue, with
respect to adding plaintiffs, that “the unconstitutional arrests are not limited to exotic dancers.”
(Id.) Plaintiffs do not address why they added defendants.
In reply, movants emphasize that, had they known plaintiffs planned to amend by
reinserting both plaintiffs and defendants who had previously been stricken from the lawsuit,
they would have strongly argued at the CMC that amending would be futile and should be
denied.11
This case is entering its fourth year and very little of substance has actually
occurred. Notably, the pleadings have not even been finalized. At the CMC on November 19,
2013, plaintiffs’ counsel advised the Court that he wished to amend the complaint to narrow the
issues and to retain only necessary parties.12 The Court granted that request. However, the
current amended complaint does not comply. At this late date, the Court will not permit the
addition of parties (neither plaintiffs nor defendants). The motion to strike (Doc. No. 121) is
granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint, by no later than March 14,
2014, to narrow both the issues and the parties consistent with the representations made to the
11
Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief. (Doc. No. 129.) Since the proposed sur-reply
adds nothing to the analysis, and since the movants should be permitted the last word, that motion is DENIED.
12
As to the claims of the lawsuit, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion has made clear that neither Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994) nor the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiffs’ lawsuit with respect to their Fourth Amendment
claims. Therefore, Count 1 (for declaratory judgment) and Count 2 (for a civil rights violation relating to the Fourth
Amendment) are viable claims and will proceed. Count 3 (for abuse of process) was previously dismissed and, as
explained in note 7 above, was not before the Sixth Circuit on any final order; therefore, that claim was not revived
by the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and will not remain in the lawsuit.
5
Court during the CMC and in light of the claims that survived the appeal. Thereafter, defendants
shall have until April 4, 2014 to file responsive pleadings.
Should the responsive pleadings be in the form of dispositive motions, any
opposition shall be filed by May 2, 2014 and replies, if any, by May 14, 2014.
Briefing on plaintiffs’ intended renewed motion for class certification shall be
held in abeyance until any preliminary dispositive motions are resolved.
At an appropriate time, if necessary, the Court will reconvene the CMC to
configure the final Case Management Plan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2014
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?