Chalmers v. Clemons

5 Citing cases

  1. Abriq v. Hall

    295 F. Supp. 3d 874 (M.D. Tenn. 2018)   Cited 120 times
    Finding that plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim must be dismissed because "[i]f a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendments, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process"

    The TGTLA specifically preserves immunity from claims arising out of "false imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus from a court." Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 29โ€“20โ€“205(2) ; Chalmers v. Clemons , 359 F.Supp.2d 700, 703 (W.D. Tenn. 2005). The government does not retain sovereign immunity for injuries arising out of any and all false imprisonments, only those arising pursuant to a mittimus from a court.

  2. Uhuru v. City of Memphis

    No. 08-2150-V (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 17, 2008)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that the allegations in the complaint that the Memphis Police Department and its director "failed to adequately screen, train, investigate, and discipline its officer defendants" were not sufficient "to raise more than a speculation that the actions of the City of which the Uhurus complain are not discretionary functions subject to immunity"

    This end result conforms with other cases that have held that a plaintiff is not required to plead a municipality's waiver of immunity in the complaint in order to comply with the notice requirements of GTLA. See Chalmers v. Clemons, 359 F. Supp. 2d 700, 702-03 (W.D. Tenn. 2005) (holding that pleading of waiver not required). Therefore, taking into consideration the established precedent of not dismissing state tort claims against the City for failure to plead the City's waiver under GTLA, the court grants, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Uhurus leave to amend their complaint within ten (10) days of the entry of this order to comply with the jurisdictional requirement, if necessary.

  3. Gray v. Williamson Med. Ctr.

    NO. 3-11-0659 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 21, 2011)

    Another decision by the same court held that a plaintiff was not required to plead the City's waiver of immunity in the complaint. Chalmers v. Clemons, 359 F.Supp.2d 700, 703 (W.D. Tenn. 2005).Jones v. Yancy, 2010 WL 625392 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2010).

  4. Milligan v. U.S.

    644 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (E.D. Tenn. 2009)   Cited 19 times
    In Milligan, a civil action, the district court characterized Koback's statement as "incorrect" and concluded that it was "not material."

    However, with respect to the false imprisonment claim, there is no indication that Mrs. Milligan was imprisoned pursuant to a mittimus from a court, and, thus, the retention of immunity contained in Section 29-20-205(2) does not apply. Chalmers v. Clemons, 359 F.Supp.2d 700, 703 (W.D.Tenn. 2005) ("The GTLA specifies that the City retains immunity solely from suits for injuries arising out of false imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus from a court. 'The City does not retain sovereign immunity under ยง 29-20-205(2)[for] injuries arising out of any and all false imprisonments. There is only immunity from suit for injuries arising out of false imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus from a court.'"); Elmore v. Cruz, No. E2001-03136-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 239169, at *3-4, 2003 Tenn.App. LEXIS 85, at *10-11 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 4, 2003) (noting that governmental entities only retain immunity under GTLA for suits arising from false imprisonment pursuant to a mittimus, and not for all claims of false imprisonment).

  5. Lee v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

    No. 3:06-0108 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2007)

    The removal of sovereign immunity has been held to include claims of common law battery. Chalmers v. Clemons, 359 F.Supp.2d 700, 703 (W.D. Tenn. 2005). The sole exception to this proposition is for claims of medical malpractice brought against a health care practitioner.