United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
RUDY LOZANO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants, City of Michigan City, Indiana's; Det. Marty Corley's; Cpl. Ken Drake's; and Det. Al Schultz's Motion for Partial Dismissal, filed June 21, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
On July 29, 2010, Hendrix was arrested and incarcerated by the Michigan City Police Department. (DE #27). The arrest occurred as part of a multi-jurisdictional drug task force with officers from both the Michigan City Police Department and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency ("USDEA"). (DE #27). Hendrix was charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun. (DE #27).
Following his arrest, Hendrix alleges that he was subjected to interrogation without an attorney despite requesting one multiple times. He was then incarcerated in a federal detention facility for sixty-one days without bond. (DE #27). The charge against Hendrix was based on incorrect information used to secure a warrant for his arrest; Hendrix's prior felony conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor offense and occurred more than fifteen years prior. (DE #27). Upon learning of the mistake, the United States Attorney moved to dismiss the federal charges against Hendrix and he was released from custody. (DE #27).
Hendrix brought a §1983 claim against the city of Michigan City and the individual police officers, in their official capacities, who were part of the task force that arrested him. Hendrix alleges that "[i]t is the common and widespread practice of such a task force to be assembled for the purpose of compiling and evaluating mass quantities of information regarding suspected drug activity in a given area, and subsequently performing large-scale warrant sweeps' for the purpose of apprehending suspected offenders." (Am. Cmplt ¶ 12). This practice caused Hendrix to be taken into custody and detained pursuant to a warrant that was based on false statements regarding his status as a convicted felon. (Am. Cmplt ¶ 13).
Although not stated in the Amended Complaint, Hendrix argues in his response to the partial motion to dismiss that the alleged widespread use of the multi-jurisdictional task force was sufficient to establish a custom or practice to support a claim against Michigan City through the actions of the Police Department. (DE #44).
Defendants have filed the instant motion requesting dismissal of the federal claims against the officers in their individual capacity as well as the federal claims against Michigan City. Defendants argue that the claims against the officers should be dismissed because they are redundant of those against Michigan City. And, Defendants seek dismissal of the section 1983 claim against Michigan City, arguing that the Amended Complaint fails to allege a policy or custom which caused the alleged harm.
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Triad Assoc., Inc. v. Chicago Housing Auth., 892 F.2d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 1989). The recognized standard for reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is whether "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations to be true and all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049, 1051 (7th Cir. 1996). However, the courts are not compelled to accept conclusory allegations concerning the legal effect of facts set out in the complaint. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp., 26 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 1994).
A pleading 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). A complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Khorrami v. Rolince, 539 F.3d 782, 788 (7th Cir. 2008), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). While detailed factual allegations are not required... the plaintiff must allege facts that, when "accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id. at 557.
Claims against officers in their individual capacity are dismissed because they are redundant to the claims against Michigan City.
In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants first argue that the section 1983 claims against the individual police officers in their official capacities are redundant and improper. (DE #37). It is widely accepted that claims against an officer are a legal action against the city or county government and such claims should be dismissed as redundant and unnecessary when the city or municipality is a properly named defendant. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985); Guzman v. Sheahan, 495 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2007). Hendrix does not dispute that naming the officers as Defendants in their official capacity is redundant and unnecessary in this instance. Accordingly, all claims against the individual police officers in their official capacity shall be dismissed.
Hendrix's Section 1983 claim against Michigan City must be dismissed because the Amended ...