Stancliff v. Notgrass et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 2/3/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
PATRICIA SUSAN STANCLIFF
DEPUTY TAYLOR NOTGRASS, et al.
M E M O R A N D U M
The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a resident of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. She brings this
action against the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department and one of its deputies, Taylor Notgrass,
On June 18, 2015, Deputy Notgrass stopped the Plaintiff’s car. In his Affidavit of Complaint,
the deputy stated that he stopped the vehicle because it failed “to maintain lane and failure to stop
at a stop sign”.1 The deputy noticed that the Plaintiff’s eyes appeared to be “bloodshot, glassy,
constricted pupils and droopy eyelids.” He subsequently administered a field sobriety test that he
claims the Plaintiff failed.
The Plaintiff was placed under arrest and charged with driving under the influence of an
intoxicant. A blood test later was negative for any alcohol in the Plaintiff’s system. The charge
against her was dropped and the arrest was expunged from Plaintiff’s record. The Plaintiff now
claims that, given the results of the blood test, she was maliciously prosecuted in violation of her
The Affidavit of Complaint is attached as an exhibit to the Complaint.
rights under the Fourth Amendment.
In Tennessee, the tort of malicious prosecution has four elements. These elements include
(1) that the defendant brought an action against the Plaintiff; (2) that the action was terminated in
the Plaintiff’s favor; (3) that the defendant acted with malice; and (4) that the defendant acted
without probable cause. Lawson v. Kroger Co., 997 F.2d 214, 216 (6th Cir. 1993).
While it is clear that the Plaintiff has satisfied the first two elements of her cause of action,
there has been no showing of either malice or the lack of probable cause. A valid arrest and
prosecution based upon then-existing probable cause is not vitiated simply because the suspect is
later found innocent. See United States v. Covelli, 738 F.2d 847, 854 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
The Plaintiff does not allege that her prosecution was started for some improper reason. Nor
does she refute the defendant’s claim that her eyes were bloodshot and glassy or that she failed the
field sobriety test. She relies solely on a blood test that was taken hours after the defendant stopped
her car. Thus, in the absence of malice and no showing of a lack of probable cause, the Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
When a Plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, as is the case here, fails to state a claim, the
Court is obliged to dismiss the action sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
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?