Burley v. Sumner Cnty. 18th Judicial Drug Task Force, Case No. 3:19-cv-00118

IVAN ANTJUAN BURLEY, Plaintiff, v. SUMNER COUNTY 18TH JUDICIAL DRUG TASK FORCE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

February 14, 2020

Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.

Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern

To: The Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action stems from the activities of the 18th Judicial District Drug Task Force,¹ an entity created by law enforcement agencies from various local governments including Sumner County, Tennessee, to aid in the investigation and prosecution of drug-related crimes. (Doc. No. 31-2.) Pro se Plaintiff Ivan Antjuan Burley alleges that, on February 8, 2016, Defendant Drug Task Force Agent Jason Arnold seized property from his residence, which is located in Davidson County, Tennessee. (Doc. No. 29.) Arnold obtained forfeiture warrants for the seized property from Defendant Sumner County Circuit Court Judge Dee David Gay on February 22, 2016. (Id.) In May 2018, the Davidson County Chancery Court ruled that Gay lacked the authority to issue forfeiture warrants for Burley's property because it was located in Davidson County. (Id.) Burley alleges that Sumner County also disregarded orders from the Davidson County Chancery Court tohold his property in safekeeping. (Id.) Burley, who appears in forma pauperis, has sued the Drug Task Force, Sumner County, Arnold, and Gay under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. (Id.)

Two matters are now before the Court. Burley has filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 29) that must be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and the Drug Task Force and Sumner County have filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30). For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the Drug Task Force and Sumner County's motion for summary judgment be terminated without prejudice to refiling; that Burley's claims against those defendants under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments be allowed to proceed; that Burley's individual-capacity claims against Arnold and Gay under the Fourth Amendment be allowed to proceed; and that Burley's Eighth Amendment claims against all defendants be dismissed.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Burley's Complaint, the Court's Initial Screening Order, and the Defendants' First Motions for Summary Judgment

On February 5, 2019, Burley initiated this action by filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Drug Task Force. (Doc. No. 1.) Burley's complaint contains the following allegations:²

On February 8, 2016, Drug Task Force agents, acting on behalf of Sumner County, executed a search warrant at Burley's residence in Whites Creek, Tennessee. (Id.) The agents seized some of Burley's property and money and, on February 22, 2016, obtained three forfeiture warrants for that property from a judge of the Sumner County Circuit Court. (Id.) Burley challenged the forfeiture warrants in the Davidson County Chancery Court and, in May 2018, that court ruled that the Sumner County Circuit Court judge "lacked the legal authority to issue the civil forfeiture warrants." (Id. at PageID# 4.) Burley alleged that Sumner County then "disregarded Davidson County judicial orders to hold any evidence seized in safe keeping until further direction from Davidson County courts." (Id.) Although the funds that were seized were ultimately returned, they "were pivotal" to Burley's real estate business, which suffered lost earnings. (Id.) Burley's complaint alleged that the Drug Task Force violated his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and sought $20 million in damages for "lost potential earnings as well as pain and suffering." (Id. at PageID# 5.)

The Court granted Burley's application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. No. 4.) The Court found that Burley's "allegations, broadly construed, suggest that the seizure [of his property] was not supported by probable cause and that the failure to maintain the seized items in safekeeping violated [his] right to due process." (Id. at PageID# 16.) The Court further concluded that Burley's allegations "suggest that the execution of facially invalid warrants and the failure to safeguard his property once seized, may be attributable to the Drug Task Force as a matter of policy or custom." (Id.) However, the Court could not determine from Burley's complaint "whether the Drug Task Force is a state agency, a municipal agency, or a suable entity created by contract with one or more municipalities" and found that Burley "would be well advised to amend his Complaint to name as defendants thespecific law enforcement officers in their individual capacity who he believes violated his rights." (Id. at PageID# 16 n.1.) Given the ambiguity of the Drug Task Force's legal status, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to issue process to the Drug Task Force's director, the Tennessee Attorney General, and Sumner County's executive. (Doc. No. 4.)

Burley quickly sought to amend his complaint through two filings, neither a full amended complaint. In the first, Burley stated his intention to add Sumner County, Arnold, and Gay as defendants. (Doc. No. 6.) In the second, Burley sought to add claims under the Eighth Amendment, alleging that the forfeiture of his property amounted to an excessive fine. (Doc. No. 10.)

On April 15, 2019, the Drug Task Force filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it is not a legal entity subject to suit. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21.) Sumner County also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Burley's amendment-related motions were procedurally improper, that his claims are time-barred, and that he had failed to make any allegations against Sumner County. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24.) On April 24, 2019, the Court found that Burley's filings were deficient and ordered him "to file an amended complaint that complies with this Court's rules and includes his allegations and claims against all defendants and all desired relief by May 16, 2019." (Doc. No. 28, PageID# 121.)

B. Burley's Amended Complaint

Burley filed a full amended complaint on May 23, 2019. (Doc. No. 29.) The amended complaint is nearly identical to the original complaint but adds the following allegations:

Sumner County is to be held responsible and accountable for creating and allow[ing] to exist [a] custom th[at] enables officers and judicial members to operate without accountability[;]

Arnold is to be held responsible and accountable as the lead law enforcement agent who[ ] initiated the seizure and request for the unlawful civil forfeiture against stated direct order from Davidson County courts[; and]Gay is to be held responsible and accountable as the judge who[ ] ordered the illegal forfeitures.

(Id. at PageID# 128-29.) The amended complaint also alleges that Arnold and Gay subjected Burley to an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment by causing the forfeiture warrants to issue.³ (Doc. No. 29.)

The amended complaint asserts the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

• against the Drug Task Force for violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments;

• against Sumner County for violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments;

• against Arnold in his individual capacity for violation of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments; and

• against Gay in his individual capacity for violation of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments.⁴

(Id.)

Burley seeks $20 million in damages. (Id.)

C. The Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment

Sumner County and the Drug Task Force responded to Burley's amended complaint by filing a joint motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 30), in which they repeat the arguments of their original motions (Doc. No. 31). The Drug Task Force argues that it is not a legal entity subject to suit; Sumner County argues that the amended complaint contains no allegations against it. (Id.) The defendants also argue that Burley's claims are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. (Id.) In support of their motion, the defendants filed the Drug Task Force's bylaws (Doc. No. 31-2) and a declaration from the chief deputy of the Sumner County Sheriff's Office stating that neither Arnold nor Gay is an employee of Sumner County (Doc. No. 31-1). The defendants also filed a statement of undisputed material facts, which contains only the following four assertions:

1. The events that allegedly violated [Burley's] civil rights occurred in February 2016.

* * *

2. [Burley's] Amended Complaint does not state what alleged Sumner County custom or policy allegedly violated [his] civil rights.

* * *

3. Neither Officer Arnold nor Gay are employees of Sumner County.

* * *

4. The [Drug Task Force] is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be sued.

(Doc. No. 32, PageID# 152-53 (citations omitted).)

Burley responded in opposition to the defendants' motion, but not to their statement of undisputed material facts. (Doc. No. 34.) Burley argues that the Drug Task Force is able to enter into contracts, purchase and hold real property, and pay debts and therefore "operates very much as a legal entity." (Id. at PageID# 158.) With respect to Sumner County, Burley argues that thereis a custom that allows the misconduct of the Drug Task Force's officers "to take place undeterred within the county." (Id. at PageID# 157.) Burley also argues that, although Arnold and Gay may not be employed directly by the county, their misconduct "is made possible due to the authorization of both the [Drug Task Force] and Sumner County." (Id. at PageID# 158.) Finally, Burley argues that, on April 30, 2019, Arnold again illegally seized funds located in Davidson County based on a Sumner County warrant. (Doc. No. 34.)

On November 5, 2019, the Court found the defendants' first motions for summary judgment moot. (Doc. No. 35.) The Court also noted that Burley had not responded to the defendants' statement of...