United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss (DN 9, 17). The motions have been fully briefed and
are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons outlined below,
the motions are GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS
a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
with pendent state law claims. (Compl., DN 1). Plaintiff
Stacey Michelle Lindsey (“Plaintiff”) claims that
on February 15, 2017, she was falsely arrested by two
Kentucky State Police troopers, Defendant Trooper Jason
Adkinson (“Adkinson”) and Defendant Unknown
Kentucky State Police Trooper #2 (“Trooper #2”)
(collectively, “the KSP Defendants”). (Compl.
¶¶ 2, 13-17). Plaintiff asserts that on February
15, 2017, the KSP Defendants arrived at her residence,
informed her they had a warrant for her arrest originating
from the Munfordville Police Department in Hart County, and
arrested her over her objections that “she had no
history or contact with Hart County” and “knew
that this was a case of mistaken identity.” (Compl.
¶¶ 2, 15-17). Plaintiff spent 17½ hours in
the Warren County Regional Jail before being released on
bail. (Compl. ¶ 17). On March 6, 2017, the Hart District
Court dismissed the charges against Plaintiff, and
“acknowledged that Mrs. Lindsey had been arrested in
error.” (Compl. ¶ 18).
relation to the KSP Defendants, Plaintiff claims that they
“had reason to know that the arrest of the Plaintiff
was without probable cause” but failed to prevent her
false arrest. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20). Plaintiff alleges
that the KSP Defendants were negligent in serving the
“invalid warrant, ” as obtained by the
Munfordville Police Department and forwarded to the KSP for
service. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 35). Plaintiff brings
claims under Section 1983 for violations of her First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, assault and battery,
and false arrest/imprisonment.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
Section 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because a
federal question is presented. Additionally, the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” and is subject to dismissal if it “fail[s] to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6). When
considering a motion to dismiss, courts must presume all
factual allegations in the complaint to be true and make all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
Total Benefits, 552 F.3d at 434 (citation omitted).
“But the district court need not accept a bare
assertion of legal conclusions.” Tackett v. M &
G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted). “A pleading that offers labels and
conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if
it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual
enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Traverse Bay
Area Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Dep't of
Educ., 615 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim becomes
plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). “A complaint will be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) if no law supports the claims made, if the
facts alleged are insufficient to state a claim, or if the
face of the complaint presents an insurmountable bar to
relief.” Southfield Educ. Ass'n v. Southfield
Bd. of Educ., 570 F. App'x 485, 487 (6th Cir. 2014)
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-64).
moves the Court to dismiss the Complaint, asserting,
inter alia, that he did not deprive Plaintiff of any
constitutional right and thus Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. (Def.'s Mem.
Supp. Mot. Dismiss 3, DN 9-1 [hereinafter Adkinson's
Mem.]). Trooper #2, by special appearance of counsel,
mounts substantially the same argument. (Def.'s Mem.
Supp. Mot. Dismiss 4, DN 17-1 [hereinafter Trooper #2's
Mem.]). In response, Plaintiff argues that her arrest was
effected without probable cause, and therefore violated her
clearly established rights. (Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot.
Dismiss 2-6, DN 10 [hereinafter Pl.'s Resp.]; Pl.'s
Resp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 1, DN 23).
reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court “may considers
the Complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public
records, items appearing in the record of the case and
exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so
long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central
to the claims contained therein.” Basset v.
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426,
430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). As the Complaint
references the arrest warrant at issue, and Plaintiff and
Defendants have each attached the warrant as exhibits to
filings pertaining to the pending motions, the Court will
consider the warrant in its review. The Court takes judicial
notice that the arrest warrant contains Plaintiff's
identifying information rather than the intended
arrestee's. (Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss Ex.
1, 11, DN 10-1).