Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-1014-L
November 18, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
By Order of Reference entered August 29, 2002, the District Court referred the motion to dismiss of Defendants Thomas Steelman, S.B. Spicer, and the Grand Prairie Police Department to the United States Magistrate Judge for hearing, if necessary, and for proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for disposition of the motion. Plaintiff filed a response on September 3, 2002, and Defendants filed a reply September 18, 2002. The findings, conclusions and recommendation follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Plaintiff brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He alleges that Defendants Thomas Steelman ("Steelman") and S. B. Spicer ("Spicer"), police officers with the Grand Prairie Police Department ("Department"), violated his civil rights. He also alleges that the Department violated his civil rights and that it conspired with others to violate his civil rights. Plaintiffs claims arise out of a police investigation of Plaintiff's accusation that Defendants Boyd Williamson ("Williamson") and James Springer ("Springer") committed assault and battery against him and falsely imprisoned him on May 25, 2000, at his former place of employment, L-3 Communications Corporation ("L-3 Corp."). Defendants Williamson and Springer both worked for L-3 Corp. at the time of the incident.
Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted. Lowrey v. Texas AM Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). A district court cannot dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim which would entitle plaintiff to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In ruling on such a motion, the court cannot look beyond the face of the pleadings. Baker, 75 F.3d at 196; Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal. Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1992).
Dismissal is warranted if a plaintiff has (1) been given the opportunity to amend plaintiffs complaint, (2) made specific and detailed allegations constituting plaintiffs best case, and (3) still fails to state a claim. See Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1986) (recognizing that dismissal is required if a plaintiff has had fair opportunity to make his case, but has failed); Morrison v. City of Baton Rouge, 761 F.2d 242, 246 (5th Cir. 1985) (assuming that the specific allegations of the amended complaint constitute the plaintiffs' best case).
The Department's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff is suing the Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A plaintiff may not bring a civil rights claim against a servient political agency or department unless such agency or department enjoys a separate and distinct legal existence. See Darby v. Pasadena Police Dept., 939 F.2d 311, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1991). Unless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert with the government itself. Darby, 939 F.2d at 313. Plaintiff has failed to show that the Department has been granted the capacity to sue or be sued. In its present posture, his suit seeks relief from an entity which does not exist for such purposes. Darby, 939 F.2d. at 314. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Department, and the Department should be dismissed with prejudice. A pro se plaintiff who names a non-jural entity as defendant should be alerted and given an opportunity to amend before dismissal of his complaint. See Parker v. Fort Worth Police Dept., 980 F.2d 1023, 1026 (5th Cir. 1993).
In his response to the dismissal motion, Plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint to add the City of Grand Prairie ("the City") as a defendant. The Department argues that (1) under the facts Plaintiff alleges, he fails to state a claim against the City and (2) he should not be allowed to amend his complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court and leave of court shall be freely given when justice so requires. FED. R. Civ. PROC. 15(a). Motions for leave to amend are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, USA., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 1991). The Court may consider such factors as "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment [and] futility of amendment." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The Court agrees that under the facts alleged, Plaintiff does not state a claim against the City. However, the Court is unable to state that an amendment would be futile; at this stage the Court cannot determine that it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim against the City which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 5-46 (1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to state any facts which would entitle him to relief against the City and to add the City as a defendant, if such facts exist.
The Officers' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend his complaint to add facts with respect to his claims against Steelman and Spicer. Steelman and Spicer are claiming the defense of qualified immunity and Plaintiff must plead with particularity facts that overcome that immunity. In connection with a separate motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williamson, Springer and L-3 Corp., this Court has recommended that Plaintiff be allowed to amend his complaint. Additionally, this Court has recommended that Williamson's, Springer's and L-3 Corp.'s motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice to their bringing a dispositive motion after Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint.
Ordinarily, a plaintiff would be required to file a Reply pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a) to address the defense of qualified immunity. In this case, other defects exist in the complaint, and Plaintiff is seeking leave to amend the complaint to state the complete facts.
In response to those defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff attempted, as he has done here, to assert additional facts in his responsive pleading and to attach evidence in the form of an Appendix. The Court has instructed Plaintiff that it will not consider the response and Appendix as part of the Complaint and that an amended complaint will supersede the present complaint and must include all of the facts upon which Plaintiff intends to rely.
The Court does not find that undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on Plaintiff's part or undue prejudice to Defendants would result if Plaintiff is allowed one opportunity to state his best case against all the defendants. The Court is unable to determine whether the amendment would be futile. Dismissal is not warranted unless Plaintiff has stated his best case. See Jacquez, 801 F.2d at 792-93; Morrison, 761 F.2d at 246. The Amended Complaint will entirely supercede the Complaint in this case and should include all facts which entitled him to relief Plaintiff should not attempt to incorporate by reference his previous pleadings. Moreover, Plaintiff may not attempt to submit evidence in support of his Amended Complaint by attaching documents to the complaint. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must comply with the terms of FED. R. Civ. P. 8.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that (1) the motion to dismiss of Defendants S.B. Spicer and Thomas Steelman, filed June 25, 2002, be denied without prejudice; (2) the Grand Prairie Police Department's Motion to Dismiss, filed June 25, 2002, be granted; (3) the Department be dismissed with prejudice; (4) Plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint be granted and (5) Plaintiff be granted twenty days to file an amended complaint.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).