Summary
dismissing failure to train and supervise claims where the plaintiffs lumped the defendants together as a generalized group and alleged that the group maintained unconstitutional policies and customs and failed to train and supervise those under their supervision but did not allege specific facts about who, what, where, and when that would establish a plausible claim
Summary of this case from Tivis v. City of Colo. SpringsOpinion
Civil Case No. 09-cv-02802-REB-MEH.
January 28, 2011
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION GRANTING IN PART THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS HARRISON FORT COLLINS
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendants Dennis V. Harrison and City of Fort Collins Joinder in Defendants Brian Koopman, Luke Hecker and City of Loveland's Motion To Dismiss [#22] filed January 8, 2010; and (2) Dennis V. Harrison and the City of Fort Collins' Unopposed Motion for Clarification of this Court's Order Concerning Defendants' Motion To Dismiss [#101] filed September 29, 2010. I read the joinder [#22] as a motion to dismiss, and I grant the motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. I grant the motion for clarification [#101].
"[#22]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights through an alleged (1) unreasonable search and seizure, (2) malicious prosecution, (3) use of excessive force, (4) failure to train and supervise, and (5) a conspiracy. These claims arise generally from a September 6, 2007, execution of a no-knock search warrant at premises in Loveland, Colorado, the arrest of plaintiff Jeremy Myers the next day, and the subsequent prosecution of Myers on criminal charges relating to the alleged operation of a methamphetamine laboratory on the premises. The criminal charges were dismissed.
On January 7, 2010, the defendants associated with the City of Loveland filed their Motion To Dismiss Claims Against Defendants Brian Koopman, Luke Hecker and City of Loveland [#14]. On January 8, 2010, defendants Dennis V. Harrison and the City of Fort Collins filed their joinder [#22] stating that they joined in the motion to dismiss [#14] filed by the Loveland defendants. Defendant Luke Hecker is the Chief of the Loveland Police Department, and Defendant Harrison is the Chief of the Fort Collins Police Department. Of course, both Loveland and Fort Collins are Colorado municipalities. In their joinder [#22], Harrison and Fort Collins argue that every allegation and claim for relief in the Complaint [#2] asserted against Hecker also is asserted against Harrison and that every allegation and claim for relief in the Complaint asserted against Loveland also is asserted against Fort Collins. Harrison joined in every reason and argument asserted by Hecker in support of his motion to dismiss [#14], and Fort Collins joined in every reason and argument asserted by Loveland in its motion to dismiss [#14]. In their response [#35] to the joinder [#22], the plaintiffs do not dispute Harrison and Fort Collins' contention that the claims alleged against Harrison and Fort Collins are essentially identical to the claims asserted against Hecker and Loveland, respectively, and are subject to the same analysis. The plaintiffs adopted in their response [#35] the reasoning and arguments contained in their response [#34] to the Loveland defendants' motion to dismiss.
On September 27, 2010, I entered an order [#99] granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss [#14] filed by the Loveland defendants. The analysis of the claims asserted against Hecker and the City of Loveland reflected in that order [#99] is applicable equally to the claims asserted against Harrison and Fort Collins. Reading Harrison and Fort Collins' joinder [#22] as a motion to dismiss, and based on the analysis reflected in my previous order [#99], I grant in part the relief requested by Harrison and Fort Collins in their joinder [#22], and deny in part the relief requested.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the Defendants Dennis V. Harrison and City of Fort Collins Joinder in Defendants Brian Koopman, Luke Hecker and City of Loveland's Motion To Dismiss [#22] filed January 8, 2010, which I treat as a motion to dismiss, is GRANTED as to the plaintiffs' first and third claims, as alleged in the complaint [#2], because those claims are time barred;
2. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), Defendants Dennis V. Harrison and City of Fort Collins Joinder in Defendants Brian Koopman, Luke Hecker and City of Loveland's Motion To Dismiss [#22] filed January 8, 2010, which I treat as a motion to dismiss, is GRANTED as to the plaintiffs' claims against defendant Dennis V. Harrison in his official capacity;
3. That the plaintiffs' first and third claims, as alleged in the complaint [#2], against defendants Dennis V. Harrison and the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
4. That otherwise, Defendants Dennis V. Harrison and City of Fort Collins Joinder in Defendants Brian Koopman, Luke Hecker and City of Loveland's Motion To Dismiss [#22] filed January 8, 2010, read as a motion to dismiss, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending resolution of the pending motions for summary judgment; and
5. That Dennis V. Harrison and the City of Fort Collins' Unopposed Motion for Clarification of this Court's Order Concerning Defendants' Motion To Dismiss [#101] filed September 29, 2010, is GRANTED on the terms stated in this order.
Dated January 28, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.