Northrup et al v. City of Brunswick, Georgia et al, No. 2:2017cv00126 - Document 15 (S.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims against the City of Brunswick, Georgia Police Department and Glynn County, Georgia Police Department are therefore dismissed. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 2/5/2018. (csr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Northrup et al v. City of Brunswick, Georgia et al Doc. 15 3in t^e tinitetr States! IBtie(tnct Court for tfie ^outliem IBtotrirt of <@eorsta Pmnotoitft IBtbiOtott JULIE NORTHRUP and RICKARD SCRUGGS, Plaintiffs, NO: V. CITY OF BRUNSWICK, CITY OF BRUNSWICK, POLICE DEPARTMENT; 217-CV-126 GEORGIA; GEORGIA, KEVIN JONES, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Brunswick Police Department; PAUL GEORGE, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Brunswick Police Department; GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA; GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; MATTHEW J. DOERING, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the Glynn County Police Department; CHAD LOWTHER, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the Glynn County Police Department; ANTHONY CLARK, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the Glynn County Police Department; CORY MALLARD, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the Glynn County Police Department; and JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity as a A0 72A (Rev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com police officer of the Glynn County Police Department, Defendants. ORDER This Brunswick, matter comes before the Court Georgia Police Department, Police Department's Rule 12(b)(6) on Defendants' City of and Glynn County, Georgia Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. This Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.^ the reasons stated below, 7. For the Motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND At this stage of the case, the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On January Defendant George 18, stopped 2017 a at 2013 approximately Chevrolet 2:19 P.M., Avalanche which Scruggs was driving and in which Northrup was a passenger. No. 1 15, 16. Defendant George asserted that he stopped the vehicle because he had reason to believe the license plate was registered to a vehicle other than the Avalanche. 17. George Defendant registration No. 1 55 Dkt. examined Scruggs' license and insurance information on 20-22. Defendant George asked then Dkt. the No. 15 and the Avalanche. Dkt. Scruggs and then ^ The pending Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Complaint, dkt. no. 14, does not affect the Court's analysis herein. Both the Complaint as it presently stands and the would-be Amended Complaint name as Defendants the Glynn County Police Department and the Brunswick Police Department. Northrup if they would consent to him searching the Avalanche. Dkt. No. 1 Defendant vehicle. Unit. at mi 26-29. George ordered Dkt. No. Dkt. No. Neither consented. both Dkt. No. to stand Plaintiffs 1 21,29, behind the 1 5 30. Defendant George then requested a K-9 1 5 approximately 34. Additional 2:31 P.M. Dkt. officers arrived on the No. 1 5 45. scene Defendant George stated to Defendant Clark, Mallard, or Doe that he had initially stopped the Avalanche because the tag did not match, but that he must have because entered it did in the tag fact number match the incorrectly second time. the Dkt. Defendant George stated that he ^'believed that first No. 1 [Scruggs] time 5 45. was on probation, which would allow [him] to perform a Fourth Amendment search on him." Dkt. Dkt. No. Clark, 1 5 51. Mallard, No. 1 5 46. Shortly or Doe Scruggs was not on probation. thereafter. arrived on the Lowther handling the K-9 police dog. Lowther ordered approximately 2:53 contraband on Avalanche. Dkt. released. Dkt. 42 rights. U.S.C. dog P.M.; the dog 1 5 1983 55 55, scene, Dkt. sniff the 1 No. around neither persons 58, Defendant 1 5 48. Defendant the in 61. and with Avalanche alerted nor 59, Lowther or to at drugs around Plaintiffs or the were 65. brought § to Plaintiffs' No. No. Plaintiffs to the Defendants this for claim against alleged Defendants violations Defendants City of Brunswick, of pursuant their civil Georgia Police Department and Glynn County, Georgia Police Department moved for the that the complaint to be dismissed as to them. Dkt. No. 7. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs' complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. brought P. 8(a). When ruling pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), the facts set forth in on the 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). state a factual complaint favor. to dismiss and draw Randall v. all reasonable Scott, 610 F.3d Although a complaint need not contain allegations, it must contain ^'enough facts claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ''A claim has factual motion a district court must accept as true inferences in the plaintiffs' detailed a content inference alleged." 544, 570 Bell (2007). facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads that that 550 U.S. to the Ashcroft allows the defendant v. Iqbal, court is 556 to liable U.S. draw for 662, the the 678 reasonable misconduct (2009). The Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable Spirit inferences Airlines, Inc., 836 in favor F.3d of 1340, the plaintiff. 1347 (11th Cir. Ray v. 2016). However, the Court does not accept as true threadbare recitations of the elements of the unsupported by factual claim and disregards allegations. Iqbal, legal 556 U.S. conclusions at 678-79. At a minimum, inferential a complaint allegations should respecting ''contain either all material the direct or elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Fin. Sec. Assurance, 83 (11th Cir. 2007) for Choice, Inc., Inc. v. Stephens, (per curiam) 253 F.3d 678, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1282- (quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. 683 (11th Cir. 2001)). DISCUSSION Defendants Brunswick Police Department and Glynn County Police Department filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendants argue that the action is subject to dismissal against the "City of Brunswick, Police Department and Glynn County, Georgia Georgia Police Department," because such defendants are not legal entities capable of being sued. Dkt. No. In order 7 p. to 3. state a claim for relief Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements. allege that an act or omission deprived under First, them § 1983, Plaintiffs must "of some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., Cir. 1995). Second, 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th that act or omission must have been committed by "a person acting under color of state law." Id. Here, the issue is whether the Brunswick Police Department and the Glynn County Police Departments are "persons" capable of being sued under Georgia law. The "capacity to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held . law, the . . Georgia ^^recognizes Supreme only three natural persons; (3) Fed. R. (2) Civ. P. 17(b). Looking to Georgia Court classes as has explained legal that entities, an artificial person Georgia namely: (1) (a corporation); and such quasi-artificial persons as the law recognizes as being capable to sue." Ga. Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Elbert Cty., 368 S.E.2d 500, 502 (1988) (quotation omitted). Police departments and sheriff's departments are not one of the three legal entities subject to suit. See Lovelace v. Dekalb Cent. Prob., 144 F. App'x 793, 795 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (''We (llth Cir. departments and 1992)) police have observed departments are not that '[s]heriff's usually considered legal entities subject to suit.'"). "Accordingly, Glynn County Plaintiff[s] Police cannot state a claim against the Department . . . , as the Glynn County Police Department is merely the vehicle through which the county governs Cty. is and Police the is not Dep't, Brunswick a proper 2007 WL Police party 4287717, Brunswick Police Dep't, Ga. report (S.D. Ga. 2017). and at Department Franklin v. 2017), defendant." *2 a (S.D. proper Clark Ga. adopted, 2017 Glynn 2007). Defendant. 2017 WL 4448236, recommendation v. at *3 WL Nor See (S.D. 6045443 CONCLUSION For these 20), of reasons. is hereby GRANTED, Brunswick, Georgia Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. and Plaintiff's claims against the City Police Department and the Glynn County, Georgia Police Department are therefore dismissed. SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2018. HON. K.ISA'GOlTBEYl WOOD, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA A0 72A (Rev. 8/82) No. CONCLUSION For these reasons. 7), of is hereby GRANTED, Brunswick, Georgia Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. and Plaintiff's claims against the City Police Department and the Glynn County, Georgia Police Department are therefore dismissed. SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2018. HON.«<LISA GODBEYIWOOD, UNITED STATES SOUTHERN A0 72A (Rev. 8/82) No. JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
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.
