Graves v. Mahoning Cnty.

SHANNON GRAVES, et al., PLAINTIFFS, v. MAHONING COUNTY, et al., DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO. 4:10CV2821

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

January 28, 2015

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by defendant Mahoning County ("the County") (Doc. No. 140 ["County MTD"]) and defendants Austintown Township, Beaver Township, Boardman Township, Goshen Township, Green Township, Jackson Township, Milton Township and Springfield Township (Doc. No. 142 ["Townships MTD"]). Plaintiffs filed a combined brief in opposition to both motions (Doc. No. 145 ["Pls. Opp'n"]) and defendants filed separate replies (Doc. No. 148 ["County Reply"]; Doc. No. 149 ["Townships Reply"]).

On November 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority. (Doc. No. 150.) The Court directed plaintiffs to file a supplement to their opposition brief, specifying how the new authority applies to their arguments in opposition to the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief (Doc. No. 152 ["Pls. Suppl."]) and defendants filed their supplemental replies (Doc. No. 153 ["County Suppl."]; Doc. No. 154 ["Townships Suppl."]).

For the reasons discussed below, both motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case has a rather extensive history. The case was filed on December 14, 2010 and was originally assigned to another judicial officer, who recused in April 2011. At that time, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. Although it took some time due to plaintiff's two unsuccessful attempts to amend the complaint, defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On November 28, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of plaintiffs Shannon Graves and Amber Sexton, concluding that they were barred both by the teachings of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) and by the doctrine of res judicata. The Court stayed the case with respect to the remaining plaintiffs, pending resolution of various state proceedings. As a result of the stay, plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and for class certification were denied without prejudice. (See Doc. No. 103.) Cross-appeals were taken.

On August 15, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the claims of Graves and Sexton, rejecting both grounds relied upon by this Court,¹ and remanded for further proceedings, noting that it need not address the propriety of any stay of the case since, during the pendency of the appeals, all state cases had been resolved, rendering the entire matter ripe to proceed in federal court. (See Doc. No. 112 ["Opinion"]; Doc. No. 114.) The Sixth Circuit did not address the merits of plaintiffs' underlying claims.

Following remand, the Case Management Conference ("CMC") was convened on November 19, 2013. Therein, it was agreed by counsel and the Court that plaintiffs should file anamended complaint; however, when that amended complaint was filed, it exceeded the scope of the permission to amend that had been granted during the CMC and it was, therefore, later stricken upon defendants' motion. (See Doc. No. 136.) With leave, plaintiffs filed the amended complaint that is now operative in the case. (Doc. No. 139 ["Compl."].) Defendants filed the instant motions to dismiss.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although this pleading standard does not require great detail, the factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (citing authorities). In other words, "Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief." Id. at 556, n.3 (criticizing the Twombly dissent's assertion that the pleading standard of Rule 8 "does not require, or even invite, the pleading of facts").

"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Rule 8 does not "unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 678-79. "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 679. "The court need not, however, accept unwarrantedfactual inferences." Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)).

B. The Parties' Positions

The two counts of the complaint are brought by nine individual plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,² against Mahoning County and nine townships within the County allegedly "in privity" with the County (Austintown, Beaver, Boardman, Goshen, Green, Jackson, Milton, Smith, and Springfield). (Compl. ¶ 11.)³ There are no individual defendants in this case, although the complaint contains allegations regarding the actions of township police officers and deputy clerks of court.⁴

Since the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint are of tantamount importance on a motion to dismiss, the Court sets out the relevant allegations in some detail below. Plaintiffs allege:

1. Plaintiffs are individuals whom Defendants . . . have from time to time arrested in violation of their Due Process rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . . For years, Defendants . . . have improperly issued felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants based on putative affidavits that do not exist and have improperly allowed court clerks, who lack capacity to determine probable cause, to issue felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants. Defendants' blatantly unconstitutional practices continue unabated and Plaintiffs, together with all others [sic] individuals similarly situated, face a clear and continued threat of Defendants' continued and inexorable trampling of their rights. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive class relief and damages.

***

10. Each Mahoning County Township has a Township police department and police officers who file criminal charges in the County Courts. Some townships like Canfield and Berlin contract with the Mahoning County sheriff's office for police services.

11. The County and Mahoning County Townships are in privity. For example, Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains is the legal advisor to each of the townships . . . and his office has promulgated, implemented, and presides over the present policy and custom of Township police officers. At times, County sheriff deputies or County Prosecutors file criminal complaints consisting only of the complainant's conclusion and further the policy and custom of permitting deputy Mahoning County court clerks ("Deputy Clerks") to issue arrest warrants without any determination of probable cause.

***

16. There is an established custom by Mahoning County Township police officers, and at times by County sheriff deputies or County Prosecutors, of filing criminal complaints consisting only of the officer's conclusion that the accused committed the offense. These complaints state only the following: "On or about [date] in Mahoning county [defendant] at [location] did engage in [offense] in violation of [statute]."

17. The custom of filing conclusory complaints to support arrest warrants is patently unconstitutional. No competent police officer believes that these conclusory complaints permit an independent determination of probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.

***

20. Upon information and belief, probable cause is decided by magistrates or judges in every county in Ohio, except in Mahoning County, where legally untrained Deputy Clerks issue felony and misdemeanor warrants as part of their clerical duties.

21. Deputy Clerks in Mahoning County issue felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants as a clerical or ministerial function, i.e., they sign warrants uponrequests, rather than as a judicial function, i.e., analyzing a complaint to determine if probable cause exists. Deputy Clerks process all arrest warrants in Mahoning County even though sixteen judges and eighteen magistrates are available, capable and trained to make this determination.

22. Deputy Clerks have not received any specialized training, monitoring, or supervision in determining probable cause to issue warrants. Deputy Clerks do not review the criminal complaint before signing the arrest warrants. Deputy Clerks rely on the officer's conclusion to arrest the accused and have never refused to sign an arrest warrant.

23. Every warrant issued by a deputy clerk is without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment provision that, "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

(Compl. [Doc. No. 139].)

The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is two-fold: (1) that deputy clerks are incapable of making a probable cause determination; and (2) that the complaints submitted by officers to the deputy clerks are bare bones complaints that do not pass constitutional muster. Significantly, plaintiffs do not allege that the arrests were made without probable cause.

The County argues in its motion to dismiss that the procedure for the issuance of arrest warrants by deputy clerks based upon complaints is a statutory procedure authorized by the State of Ohio. (County MTD at 2879-80.)⁵ The County further argues that...