United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
States District Court Greg 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 17V2 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
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Section
1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because a federal
question is presented. Additionally, the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs 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." Ashcrofi 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 Fed.Appx. 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
7 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 Plaintiffs
identifying information rather than the intended
arrestee's. (PL's Resp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss Ex.
1, 11, DN 10-1).