Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bohanon v. Reiger

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

April 20, 2017

BRADFORD BOHANON, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL REIGER, in his official and individual capacities, JOHN “NICK” SERBAN, in his official and individual capacities, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, 5135 HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. JOHN “NICK” SERBAN, in his official and individual capacities, Counter Claimant,
v.
BRADFORD BOHANON, Counter Defendant.

          ORDER

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge

         In the late night of August 7 and early morning of August 8, 2014, Plaintiff Bradford Bohanon and Defendants Officer John “Nick” Serban and Officer Michael Reiger were all drinking at Mikie's Pub when a physical altercation ensued between the officers and Mr. Bohanon. [Filing No. 11 at 3-5.] Mr. Bohanon claims he was battered by the officers while inside and outside of the establishment, and that he sustained injuries as a result of the attack. [Filing No. 11 at 6-7.] On August 5, 2016, Mr. Bohanon filed this litigation against Defendants Officer Reiger, Officer Serban, and the City of Indianapolis, alleging several claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Filing No. 1.] On December 1, 2016, Mr. Bohanon filed an Amended Complaint adding 5135 Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Mikie's Pub (“Mikie's Pub”) as a party defendant. [Filing No. 11.] Mikie's Pub has now filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Against It Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the allegations of Mr. Bohanon's original and amended complaints establish that his claims against Mikie's Pub are time-barred by the statute of limitations. [Filing No. 30.] For the reasons detailed below, the Court grants Mikie's Pub's motion to dismiss.

         I.

         Standard of Review

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2)). “Specific facts are not necessary, the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

         A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint “contain[s] 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 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Active Disposal, Inc. v. City of Darien, 635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court will not accept legal conclusions or conclusory allegations as sufficient to state a claim for relief. See McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2011). Factual allegations must plausibly state an entitlement to relief “to a degree that rises above the speculative level.” Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012). This plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

         “[T]he statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, seeFed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(c), and need not be addressed in the complaint. Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., 350 F.3d 623, 626 (7th Cir. 2003)). Although a plaintiff's complaint need not plead around an affirmative defense, “[i]f the allegations, for example, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). “A litigant may plead itself out of court by alleging (and thus admitting) the ingredients of a defense . . . .” Barry Aviation, 377 F.3d at 688 (citing Gypsum, 350 F.3d at 626).

         II.

         Relevant Background

         Mr. Bohanon's Amended Complaint makes the following allegations which are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion. During the evening and early morning hours of August 7-8, 2014, [1] Mr. Bohanon was at Mikie's Pub drinking alcoholic beverages. [Filing No. 11 at 3.] According to Mr. Bohanon, Officer Reiger and Officer Serban were also at Mikie's Pub consuming alcoholic beverages. [Filing No. 11 at 3.] Mr. Bohanon alleges that he was questioning the bartender about the accuracy of his bill. [Filing No. 11 at 4.] Mr. Bohannon alleges that Officer Serban then approached him and after a brief interaction between the two, Officer Serban grabbed Mr. Bohanon around his throat, applying a vascular neck restraint. [Filing No. 11 at 4.] He claims that Officer Reiger approached him and while he was being restrained by Officer Serban, Officer Reiger began striking Mr. Bohanon with his “fists and/or feet.” [Filing No. 11 at 4.] Mr. Bohanon alleges that after he became unconscious, Officers Reiger and Serban continued to strike Mr. Bohanon. [Filing No. 11 at 5.]

         Mr. Bohanon claims that “Mikie's Pub did not attempt to contact any other public safety officials . . . to protect [Mr.] Bohanon from an exacerbation of his injuries . . . .” [Filing No. 11 at 5.] He alleges that while he remained unconscious, Officer Reiger dragged Mr. Bohanon outside into a dark, secluded area and that both officers continued to “punch, stomp, knee, and kick” his upper body. [Filing No. 11 at 5.] Mr. Bohanon claims that even after he was taken outside, Mikie's Pub did not attempt to “intervene, stop, or contact public safety professionals to protect” him. [Filing No. 11 at 5.] Mr. Bohanon alleges that at some point during the incident, Officers “Serban and/or Reiger removed [Mr.] Bohanon's wallet and confiscated approximately $180.00.” [Filing No. 11 at 6.] According to Mr. Bohanon, the officers did not arrest Mr. Bohanon, and both returned to Mikie's Pub to continue drinking. [Filing No. 11 at 6.]

         On August 5, 2016, Mr. Bohanon filed his original complaint against Officer Reiger and Officer Serban for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and conversion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the City of Indianapolis for respondeat superior pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Filing No. 1.] On December 1, 2016, Mr. Bohanon filed an Amended Complaint adding Mikie's Pub as a party defendant and pursuing state law claims for premises liability and a violation of Indiana's Dram Shop Act. [Filing No. 11.] Mikie's Pub has now filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Against It Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Mr. Bohanon's claims against Mikie's Pub are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. [Filing No. 30.] Mr. Bohanon opposes that motion. [Filing No. 53.] The motion is now ripe for the Court's consideration.

         III.

         Procedural Issue

         Before discussing the merits of the case, the Court will first address a procedural issue. Mr. Bohanon alleges new facts in his response brief that he claims provide context to the Amended Complaint, and he filed two exhibits for the Court's consideration that pertain to state court criminal proceedings against Officer Reiger and Officer Serban. [Filing No. 53 at 2-4.]

         In his response brief, Mr. Bohanon claims that on September 10, 2014, the Marion County Prosecutor's Office (“MCPO”) filed a criminal action in state court against Officer Serban and Officer Reiger stemming from the physical altercation with Mr. Bohanon at Mikie's Pub. [Filing No. 53 at 2-3.] He claims that the state court entered a no-contact order on September 15, 2014 that prohibited Officer Serban and Officer Reiger from contacting Mr. Bohanon during the pendency of their criminal proceedings. [Filing No. 53 at 3.] He alleges that the MCPO “did not make any extra judicial statements by means of public communication, and withheld documents, video surveillance of the incident, and materials obtained and developed during the criminal investigation and prosecution of [the officers].” [Filing No. 53 at 3.] Mr. Bohanon claims he was unable to obtain “information necessary to understand the full extent of the facts and circumstances” regarding Mikie's Pub's involvement until after the criminal trial concluded on November 17, 2016. [Filing No. 53 at 3.] He alleges that this is important because he was rendered unconscious for extended periods of time due to the physical altercation. [Fili ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.