Clifton v. Jeff Davis County, Georgia et al, No. 2:2016cv00108 - Document 17 (S.D. Ga. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part Defendants' 7 Motion to Dismiss, as to Clifton's false arrest claim, malicious arrest claim, Open Records Act claim, and claims against the Jeff Davis County Sheriff's Department. Defendants' Motion to D ismiss is otherwise DENIED. Clifton's 14 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice. Clifton is DIRECTED to file a consolidated complaint within 14 days of this Order's date or face dismissal of his remaining claims with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 4/6/2017. (csr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clifton v. Jeff Davis County, Georgia et al Doc. 17 9n ?l9ntteli ^toteiei IBtsitrict Court for tfie ^otttfiem Bisetrict of (f^eorgia iSrunsittitck BtlitOton TYLER BRENT CLIFTON, Plaintiff, V. JEFF DAVIS COUNTY, GEORGIA; JEFF DAVIS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; HUGH BRANTLEY, MARCHANT, RAY WOOTEN, WANDA 2:16-CV-108 and WAYNE HALL, all Individually and as Members of the Jeff Davis Board of Commissioners; CARLA ROBERTS POWELL, Individually and as the County Attorney for Jeff Davis County, Georgia; JEFF DAVIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT; BOHANNON, Capacity; SHERIFF'S and PRESTON in His Official Defendants. ORDER Defendants (government entities dismiss this civil-rights case. be granted in part, arrest claim is as and Dkt. No. officials) 7. move to This motion will Plaintiff Tyler Brent Clifton's false time-barred fails to state a claim. second amended complaint. and his malicious arrest claim For his part, Clifton moves to file a Dkt. No. 14. This motion will be A0 72A (Rev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com DENIED withou-t prejudice. Clifton consolidated complaint within ^ must instead file a days. BACKGROUND Clifton No. Dkt. filed He then filed an amended complaint, 1. his original for 26 pages of exhibits, never served this on on July 23, 2016. Dkt. No. 7. Dkt. the original Then, on 2016. Defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss 19, complaint July moved to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint claims, No. 16 complaint on September 20, 2016. the same but Dkt. No. 8, 5. at He 1-2. on August 2016, Clifton Dkt. No. 14. among other things, false arrest and malicious arrest based on Clifton's April 4, 2014 arrest, which followed indictment.^ Dkt. No. 14-1 3 29. DISCUSSION Clifton's false arrest claim is malicious arrest claim fails to state a time-barred. claim. His Otherwise, his complaint needs to be consolidated. I. CLIFTON'S FALSE ARREST CIAIM IS TIME-BARRED. Clifton's claim for false arrest is barred by the statute of limitations. A arrest claim and a to Georgia's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 state false-arrest two-year statute of (^^Section 1983") false claim are both subject limitations ^ Clifton has surrendered an Open Records Act claim, for personal- along with all his claims against the Jeff Davis County Sheriff's Department. Dkt. No. 11, 28. These claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice. 13 at injury actions. App'x 871, 872 O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33; (11th Cir. 2014) Smith v. Mercer, (per curiam); Brown v. Lewis, 361 F. App'x 51, 54 (11th Cir. 2010) starts when the plaintiff process." Jones v. Cir. 2011) (per curiam) 391 (2007)). indictment, His false ^'is (per curiam). The clock detained pursuant Union City, 450 F. to a legal 809 App'x 807, (11th (citing Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, Clifton was detained on April 4, but did not bring this arrest 580 F. claim i s thus 2014 following suit until July 8, 2016. time-barred. Clifton argues that the statute of limitations is tolled by O.C.G.A. against § 9-3-99, ^'the which victim of stops an the alleged clock from crime" running ^'until the prosecution of such crime or act has become final or otherwise terminated." arrest. claims to See O.C.G.A. § 16-5-42. enjoys years Clifton tolling allowed officer is Plaintiff's of by fully false § The claims 9-3-99, investigated position. the victim By his logic, arrest O.C.G.A. be the criminal maximum the The Court a every arrestee unless sooner. Georgia for of arresting Court of six rejects Appeals has rejected legal interpretations that would lead "virtually all criminal prosecutions Pinkston v. App. 1990). . . [to] result in a civil lawsuit." City of Albany, 395 S.E.2d 587, 588-89 Presumably, reading O.C.G.A. § . it would even more 9-3-99 to (Ga. Ct. strongly reject allow false-arrest claims to be routinely filed six years after the events in question. Federal precedent also counsels against applying O.C.G.A. § 93-99 in the manner Plaintiff requests: has held 1983 that claims crime, but because instead DeKalb Cty. 2011) statute ex rel. (per curiam) ; 2015 WL 8773401, at inapplicable ''she she was was Jones, not to the an arrestee's victim of the defendant." 430 F. (M.D. Ga. the 838 Evans, Dec. Section alleged Bridqewater App'x 837, see also Sims v. *3 The Eleventh Circuit No. 14, v. (11th Cir. 5:15-CV-285, 2015) (holding no tolling for false-arrest claim). There is nothing to the contrary in Valades v. Uslu, S.E.2d 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). 689 There, the plaintiffs' false- arrest claim was held not to be tolled because the arresting officer was never prosecuted. Harrison v. McAfee, 788 Id. at 342. S.E.2d 872, But, 878-79 as noted by (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)—which abrogated Valades—Valades "did not make clear on what basis 'victims' 875. the plaintiffs took the position that they were within the meaning of [O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99]." The assumption, Clifton's Court will not rely on Valades's Id. at unspoken especially not when Harrison minimized it. false arrest claim is dismissed with prejudice. time-barred, and Thus, so must be II. CLIFTON'S MALICIOUS ARREST CLAIM FAILS. Clifton's prosecution malicious malicious against arrest him commenced. prosecution ^'dif fer [ing] claim are fails because Malicious mutually arrest exclusive a and torts, only in that malicious prosecution contains the additional element of showing that a prosecution was carried on." McCord 1983); see v. also Jones, 311 Stephens v. (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). against him began. S.E.2d 209, Zimmerman, 210 774 (Ga. Ct. S.E.2d App. 811, 815 Here, Clifton alleges that a prosecution He claims that ^'Defendants refused to drop the felony indictment" against him for a long time, he "was forced to expended [sic] thousands of dollars in his defense," and he 40, "was 44; forced to defend himself in Court." see also Dkt. entered nolle Thus, he No. prosequi cannot pursue 14-1 5 after a 38 Dkt. No. 1 SISI (stating government only "lengthy, contested hearing."). claim for malicious arrest, and so COMPLAINT IS this claim must be dismissed with prejudice. III. CLIFTON'S MOTION DENIED WITHOUT Clifton's TO motion allegations, served, HIS SECOND AMENDED PREJUDICE. to cannot be granted now. his FILE file First, claims, and superseding complaint. operative pleading only." his second amended complaint he must bring together all of exhibits in Normally, Marion v. a single, properly "a case may have one Nickels, No. 09-CV-723, 2010 WL 148686, Parlante v. n.3 (E.D. at *3 No. Cazares, Gal. (W.D. CIV S-11-2696, Feb. 16, Wise. 2012). amended complaint, 2010); here No. 1. wants see McDaniel at 1323506, *10 complaint . . Clifton in which adds 26 pages of exhibits—and Dkt. No. 5; Dkt. No. 16 He his Loya, (D.N.M. No. Mar. CIV 6, 1372382, muddied the waters. complaint all the 2015) Now, he allegations 2015 {'MA] No. WL new must purify including that he is Gursky v. Dep^t of Corrs., No. lO-CV-113, 2010 at *4 (W.D. Wise. Mar. 30, 2010). "To avoid the complaint must be complete in one document," with all evidentiary exhibits attached. within 14-0511, is thus directed to "start from scratch, amended ambiguity, v. Dkt. . replaces the old one."). has relying on." WL three. Then, there is his proposed second amended complaint, but them. at *5 There is his which tries to incorporate the earlier complaints. 14-1; accord 2012 WL 525690, Dkt. which he never served on Defendants. at 1-2. 14, Clifton There is his original complaint. first Jan. 14 days of this Order's Id. Failure to abide issuance will result in dismissal of this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Marion, 2010 WL 148686, at *3. CONCLUSION For (Dkt. No. the 7) reasons above. Defendants' is GRANTED in part, 6 Motion to Dismiss as to Clifton's false arrest claim, malicious claims against Defendants' arrest the Motion claim, Jeff to Davis Dismiss Motion for Leave to File a without prejudice. complaint within is Open Records County Act Sheriff's claim, and Department. otherwise DENIED. Clifton's Second Amended Complaint is DENIED Clifton is DIRECTED to file a consolidated 14 days of this Order's date or dismissal of his remaining claims with prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 6th day of April, 2017. LISA TODBEY WOOD,t CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA face
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
