Clevenger v. Raker et al
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Defendant Hamilton County's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 11/1/2012. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER CLEVENGER,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER RAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. 1:12-CV-00432
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hamilton
County’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8), Plaintiff’s response in
opposition thereto (doc. 20), and Defendant Hamilton County’s
reply in support thereof (doc. 23).
For the following reasons,
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
I.
Background
In
her
complaint,
Plaintiff
Jennifer
Clevenger,
nee
Grote, alleges that Defendant Cincinnati Police Officer Raker
erroneously
wrote
Plaintiff’s
personal
identifiers
on
the
paperwork submitted to the grand jury as part of a criminal
investigation into the activities of a different woman named
Jennifer
Grote
information
Officer
(doc.
about
Raker,
1).
The
“Jennifer
which
was
grand
Grote”
from
presented
to
-1-
jury
the
the
received
report
grand
the
faxed
jury
by
by
a
reader.
The Hamilton County grand jury returned an indictment
charging Plaintiff with the crime that should have been charged
against the other Jennifer Grote.
Plaintiff was arrested and
detained, and the charges against Plaintiff were dropped when it
became apparent that the identities of the two Jennifers had
been conflated.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988 and the Fourth
and
Fourteenth
Plaintiff
set
Amendments
forth
arrest/seizure,
in
to
her
malicious
the
United
complaint
States
claims
prosecution,
Constitution,
for
and
unlawful
“political
subdivision liability”, and she named Officer Raker, the City of
Cincinnati, and “Hamilton County, OH” as defendants (Id.).
Defendant
Hamilton
County
moves
to
dismiss
the
complaint as against it on the following bases: (i) the only
County actor alleged to have committed any wrong-doing is the
grand jury, which is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity;
(ii) the complaint fails to state a claim for relief because a
grand jury is legally permitted to return an indictment on the
basis of hearsay; (iii) the complaint fails to state a claim for
relief because, at most, it sets forth allegations supporting a
claim of negligence against Officer Raker but does not set forth
facts supporting an inference that Hamilton County’s action was
taken
with
deliberate
indifference
-2-
to
its
known
or
obvious
consequences; the complaint fails to state a claim for relief
because Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting an inference
that her injuries resulted from a governmental custom, policy or
practice;
the
complaint
fails
to
state
a
claim
for
relief
because Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting an inference
that a Hamilton County policy was the moving force behind her
injuries (doc. 8).
Defendant’s
motion
is
ripe
for
the
Court’s
consideration.
II.
Applicable Standard
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the Court to determine whether a
cognizable claim has been pled in the complaint.
The basic
federal pleading requirement is contained in Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a), which requires that a pleading "contain . . . a short and
plain
statement
of
the
entitled to relief."
claim
showing
that
the
pleader
is
Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th
Cir. 1976); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007).
In its
scrutiny of the complaint, the Court must construe all wellpleaded
facts
liberally
motion.
Scheuer
complaint
survives
v.
a
in
favor
Rhodes,
motion
of
the
416
U.S.
to
dismiss
party
232,
if
236
it
opposing
the
(1974).
A
“contain[s]
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
-3-
relief that is plausible on its face.”
Courie v. Alcoa Wheel &
Forged Products, 577 F.3d 625, 629-30 (6th Cir. 2009), quoting
Ashcroft
v.
Iqbal,
129
S.Ct.
1937,
1949
(2009),
citing
Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
A motion to dismiss is therefore a vehicle to screen
out those cases that are impossible as well as those that are
implausible.
Courie, 577 F.3d at 629-30, citing Robert G. Bone,
Twombly, Pleading Rules, and the Regulation of Court Access, 94
IOWA L. REV. 873, 887-90 (2009).
A claim is facially plausible
when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to draw the
reasonable
inference
conduct alleged.
somewhere
between
that
the
defendant
is
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
probability
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557.
and
liable
for
the
Plausibility falls
possibility.
Id.,
citing
As the Supreme Court explained,
In keeping with these principles a court considering a
motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying
pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.
While
legal
conclusions
can
provide
the
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950.
The
admonishment
to
construe
the
plaintiff's
claim
liberally when evaluating a motion to dismiss does not relieve a
plaintiff of his obligation to satisfy federal notice pleading
-4-
requirements
and
conclusions.
allege
Wright,
more
Miller
than
&
Procedure: § 1357 at 596 (1969).
bare
Cooper,
assertions
Federal
of
legal
Practice
and
"In practice, a complaint…must
contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all
of the material elements [in order] to sustain a recovery under
some viable legal theory."
Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor
Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984), quoting In Re: Plywood
Antitrust Litigation, 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. 1981); Wright,
Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1216 at 12123 (1969).
Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
clarified
the
threshold
set
for
a
Rule
12(b)(6)
dismissal:
[W]e are not holding the pleader to an impossibly high
standard; we recognize the policies behind Rule 8 and
the concept of notice pleading. A plaintiff will not
be thrown out of court for failing to plead facts in
support of every arcane element of his claim.
But
when a complaint omits facts that, if they existed,
would clearly dominate the case, it seems fair to
assume that those facts do not exist.
Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d
434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988).
III. Discussion
As
an
initial
matter,
Plaintiff
applicable standard on a motion to dismiss.
misstates
the
In her response,
she states that the Court must “determine whether Clevenger can
-5-
prove any set of facts that entitles her to relief” (doc. 20,
citing Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., 961 F.2d 575 (6th Cir.
1992)).
This
“any
set
of
facts”
standard
was
expressly
abrogated by the United States Supreme Court in 2007 in its
Twombly decision.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-62.
As noted
above, the Court must instead determine whether Plaintiff has
set forth sufficient “factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Courie, 577
F.3d at 629-30.
As
applied
against
Defendant
Plaintiff has not met this standard.
Hamilton
County,
Plaintiff contends that
her complaint does not state a claim against the grand jury but,
instead, against the “County”, which “maintains a policy-andcustom that grand-jury readers present all facts to the grand
jurors” (doc. 20).
“it
is
the
City
She insists that her complaint alleges that
and
County’s
general
employ grand-jury readers” (Id.).
the
County’s
foreseeable
policy
risk
according
to
officer’s
report
of
for
Plaintiff,
using
an
current
readers
unconstitutional
that
policy
to
She essentially argues that
grand-jury
having
“ensure[s]
and
only
no
a
arrest
reader
grand
creates
jury
a
because,
present
the
could
ever
investigate probable cause for identity because the reader would
always be limited to the report that was supplied by someone
-6-
else” (Id.).
Plaintiff’s
relief
against
identify
a
the
complaint
County
county
fails
because,
official
or
to
state
inter
alia,
entity
a
it
claim
for
does
not
responsible
for
establishing the policy of having readers present information to
the grand jury.
As Defendant notes, the only County entity
remotely implicated in the complaint is the grand jury, which
Plaintiff concedes is immune from suit.
Absent facts alleging
who is responsible for the policy at issue, the complaint fails
because it does not set forth a plausible claim.
IV.
Conclusion
Because
Plaintiff’s
complaint
fails
to
set
forth
sufficient factual allegations from which the Court can infer a
plausible claim for relief, Defendant Hamilton County’s motion
to dismiss is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 1, 2012 /s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge
-7-
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?