Ledford v. Rutledge

CARL LEE LEDFORD, Plaintiff, v. DUSTIN RUTLEDGE, et al, Defendants.

CAUSE NO.: 1:17-CV-438-TLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

September 4, 2018

OPINION AND ORDER

Carl Lee Ledford, a pro se litigant, submitted a Complaint [ECF No. 1] against Defendants Dustin Rutledge, Rogelio Escutia, Andrew D. Hahn, Bradley Balasa, A. Shefferly, R. Nystuen, Shane LaMartz, E.M., and the Sheriff of Knox County, and also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] on October 18, 2017, which the Court granted [ECF No. 3] on October 25, 2017. Subsequently, the Court considered three Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 34, 36, 41] filed by some, but not all, of the Defendants. On March 28, 2018, the Court dismissed [ECF No. 60] most of the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend his Complaint. Defendant E.M. filed an Answer [ECF No. 61] to the Plaintiff's original Complaint on April 9, 2018, and Defendant LaMartz filed an Answer [ECF No. 68] on May 9, 2018, to the Plaintiff's original Complaint.

The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 70] on June 27, 2018, restating his claims and adding numerous Defendants based on their employment relationships with the named individual Defendants. Along with his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff manually filed a USB drive containing videos in support of his claims; however, the Plaintiff did not serve a copy of these videos on any of the Defendants. Defendants E.M.; Nystuen; Shefferly; Hahn; Escutia; Lamartz; Rutledge; the counties of Largo,¹ Marion, LaPorte, Elkhart, Allen, and Starke; Indiana State, Wabash, and Michigan City Police Departments; and LaPorte County Sheriff's Department filed Notices [ECF Nos. 72, 74, 76] that they had not been served with any copies of the videos. On July 9, 2018, the Magistrate Judge ordered [ECF No. 86] the Plaintiff to, among other things, file an Amended Certificate of Service indicating service of the entire Amended Complaint, including the videos contained on the USB drive, to the originally named Defendants. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Serve Attachments using CM/ECF [ECF No. 87], requesting that the Court make copies of the videos contained on the USB and serve them on the Defendants via the Court's CM/ECF system as he is indigent and cannot afford to make the copies himself. The Court took this Motion under advisement [ECF No. 95] until it had performed further screening of the Plaintiff's Complaint as well as addressed the Motions to Dismiss² [ECF Nos. 90, 92] filed subsequent to the Plaintiff's Motion to Serve.

The Court will now consider (1) the pending Motions to Dismiss; (2) whether the Plaintiff has corrected the deficiencies identified by the Court in its March 28, 2018, Opinion and Order; and (3) whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted against the added Defendants.

THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. More specifically, he claims violations of his:

Human Right to Free Travel, and the Plaintiff's U.S. right to be free from harassment, and racially-based profiling, deliberate-intimidation, premeditated-stalking, illegal use of excessive force, assault, sexual assault, false-ticketing, citing, false arrest and extortion, and violation of the Plaintiff's U.S. Constitutionally Protected Rights to Due Process, and Plaintiff's U.S. Rights to Adequate Counsel, and to include Abuse of Process violations, and Malicious Prosecution, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

(Amend. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 70.) He also asserts that the Defendants acted in a concerted manner and conspired to violate his rights. He alleges that he has been unjustly detained on numerous occasions as a result of racial profiling. According to the Plaintiff, these detentions have ultimately resulted in over $15,000.00 in fines, costs, and fees, and he suffers severe emotional stress from the harassment. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

As a basis for his allegations, the Plaintiff details multiple traffic stops:

(1) August 1, 2016, by Defendants Shefferly and Nystuen, which resulted in the Plaintiff's arrest, although the case was ultimately dismissed. Defendants Shefferly and Nystuen are employed by the City of Fort Wayne, located within Allen County;

(2) September 14, 2016, by Defendant Balasa, which resulted in a warning. Defendant Balasa is employed by the City of Nappanee, located within Elkhart County;

(3) October 16, 2016, by Defendant Hahn, which resulted in a warning. Defendant Hahn is employed by LaPorte County;

(4) November 8, 2016, by Defendant Escutia, which resulted in a warning. Defendant Escutia is employed by the State of Indiana and performed the relevant traffic stop in Michigan City, located within LaPorte County;(5) December 14, 2016, by Defendant LaMartz, which resulted in a citation that was ultimately dismissed. Defendant LaMartz is employed by the State of Indiana and performed the relevant traffic stop in Indianapolis, located in Marion County;

(6) December 29, 2016, by Defendant Rutledge, which resulted in a finding of guilty after a bench trial in state court. Defendant Rutledge is employed by the State of Indiana and performed the relevant traffic stop in the Township of Lagro, located within Wabash County; and

(7) May 16, 2016, by Defendant E.M., which resulted in a warning. Defendant E.M. is employed by the City of Fort Wayne, located within Allen County.

The Plaintiff requests $500,000 in damages as well as injunctive relief.

Defendants Shefferly, Nystuen, E.M., City of Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne Police Department, Chief of Fort Wayne Police Department ("Fort Wayne Defendants"), and Defendant Balasa filed Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 90, 92]. Defendant Balasa argues that the Plaintiff fails to state any claim against him and that he should be dismissed from this action. The Fort Wayne Defendants concede that the Plaintiff has stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment against Defendants Shefferly, Nystuen, E.M., and the City of Fort Wayne, but they argue that the Plaintiff fails to state any other claims against these Defendants. The Fort Wayne Defendants also argue that the Fort Wayne Police Department and its Chief are not suable entities and should be dismissed from this action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To state a claim under the federal notice pleading standards, a complaint must set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations are accepted as true and need only give "fair notice of what the . . .claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776-77 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). However, a plaintiff's allegations must show that his entitlement to relief is plausible, rather than merely speculative. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008). Although pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers, Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013), the factual allegations in the complaint must nevertheless be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage, but "allegations in the form of legal conclusions are insufficient . . . ." Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

A. Deficiencies in Original Complaint

The claims that the Court addressed in its March 28, 2018, Opinion and Order were for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on violation of the Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment rights, as well as malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy brought against the named Defendants (Balasa, Hahn, Escutia, E.M., LaMartz, Rutledge, and the Sheriff).³ The Court first disposed of the Plaintiff's Ninth Amendment claims, noting that the Ninth Amendment does not protect any specific right. The Court also found that the Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that any of the Defendants were liable for violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, intentionalinfliction of emotional distress, or conspiracy. However, the Court found that the Plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded facts to support his claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as against Defendants E.M. and LaMartz. The Court dismissed the claims for which the Plaintiff had not pleaded sufficient facts, without prejudice.

1. Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects only against actions by federal actors, and the Plaintiff has brought claims only against state actors; however, the protections of the Fourth Amendment have been made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Zoretic v. Darge, 832 F.3d 639, 643 (7th Cir. 2016). To state a claim under § 1983, the Plaintiff must allege that "the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law and this conduct deprived [him] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Townsend v. Vallas, 256 F.3d 661, 669 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). Under the Fourth Amendment, the Plaintiff must allege that he was subjected to a search or seizure without probable cause. The Court determined in its previous Opinion and Order that the Plaintiff had stated a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as against Defendants LaMartz and E.M. and will not revisit these claims here.

a. Defendant Rutledge

According to the Plaintiff, Defendant Rutledge detained the Plaintiff for speeding around...