Clevenger v. Raker et al, No. 1:2012cv00432 - Document 25 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Defendant Hamilton County's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 11/1/2012. (km1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JENNIFER CLEVENGER, : : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff, v. OFFICER RAKER, et al., Defendants. NO. 1:12-CV-00432 OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hamilton County s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8), Plaintiff s response in opposition thereto (doc. 20), and Defendant Hamilton County s reply in support thereof (doc. 23). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant s motion. I. Background In her complaint, Plaintiff Jennifer Clevenger, nee Grote, alleges that Defendant Cincinnati Police Officer Raker erroneously wrote Plaintiff s personal identifiers on the paperwork submitted to the grand jury as part of a criminal investigation into the activities of a different woman named Jennifer Grote information Officer (doc. about Raker, 1). The Jennifer which was grand Grote from presented to -1- jury the the received report grand the faxed jury by by a reader. The Hamilton County grand jury returned an indictment charging Plaintiff with the crime that should have been charged against the other Jennifer Grote. Plaintiff was arrested and detained, and the charges against Plaintiff were dropped when it became apparent that the identities of the two Jennifers had been conflated. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Plaintiff set Amendments forth arrest/seizure, in to her malicious the United complaint States claims prosecution, Constitution, for and unlawful political subdivision liability , and she named Officer Raker, the City of Cincinnati, and Hamilton County, OH as defendants (Id.). Defendant Hamilton County moves to dismiss the complaint as against it on the following bases: (i) the only County actor alleged to have committed any wrong-doing is the grand jury, which is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity; (ii) the complaint fails to state a claim for relief because a grand jury is legally permitted to return an indictment on the basis of hearsay; (iii) the complaint fails to state a claim for relief because, at most, it sets forth allegations supporting a claim of negligence against Officer Raker but does not set forth facts supporting an inference that Hamilton County s action was taken with deliberate indifference -2- to its known or obvious consequences; the complaint fails to state a claim for relief because Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting an inference that her injuries resulted from a governmental custom, policy or practice; the complaint fails to state a claim for relief because Plaintiff did not allege facts supporting an inference that a Hamilton County policy was the moving force behind her injuries (doc. 8). Defendant s motion is ripe for the Court s consideration. II. Applicable Standard A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the Court to determine whether a cognizable claim has been pled in the complaint. The basic federal pleading requirement is contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires that a pleading "contain . . . a short and plain statement of the entitled to relief." claim showing that the pleader is Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th Cir. 1976); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). In its scrutiny of the complaint, the Court must construe all wellpleaded facts liberally motion. Scheuer complaint survives v. a in favor Rhodes, motion of the 416 U.S. to dismiss party 232, if 236 it opposing the (1974). A contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to -3- relief that is plausible on its face. Courie v. Alcoa Wheel & Forged Products, 577 F.3d 625, 629-30 (6th Cir. 2009), quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A motion to dismiss is therefore a vehicle to screen out those cases that are impossible as well as those that are implausible. Courie, 577 F.3d at 629-30, citing Robert G. Bone, Twombly, Pleading Rules, and the Regulation of Court Access, 94 IOWA L. REV. 873, 887-90 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference conduct alleged. somewhere between that the defendant is Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. probability Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. and liable for the Plausibility falls possibility. Id., citing As the Supreme Court explained, In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. at 1950. The admonishment to construe the plaintiff's claim liberally when evaluating a motion to dismiss does not relieve a plaintiff of his obligation to satisfy federal notice pleading -4- requirements and conclusions. allege Wright, more Miller than & Procedure: § 1357 at 596 (1969). bare Cooper, assertions Federal of legal Practice and "In practice, a complaint ¦must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all of the material elements [in order] to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984), quoting In Re: Plywood Antitrust Litigation, 655 F.2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. 1981); Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1216 at 12123 (1969). Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth clarified the threshold set for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal: [W]e are not holding the pleader to an impossibly high standard; we recognize the policies behind Rule 8 and the concept of notice pleading. A plaintiff will not be thrown out of court for failing to plead facts in support of every arcane element of his claim. But when a complaint omits facts that, if they existed, would clearly dominate the case, it seems fair to assume that those facts do not exist. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 1988). III. Discussion As an initial matter, Plaintiff applicable standard on a motion to dismiss. misstates the In her response, she states that the Court must determine whether Clevenger can -5- prove any set of facts that entitles her to relief (doc. 20, citing Jackson v. Richards Medical Co., 961 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1992)). This any set of facts standard was expressly abrogated by the United States Supreme Court in 2007 in its Twombly decision. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-62. As noted above, the Court must instead determine whether Plaintiff has set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Courie, 577 F.3d at 629-30. As applied against Defendant Plaintiff has not met this standard. Hamilton County, Plaintiff contends that her complaint does not state a claim against the grand jury but, instead, against the County , which maintains a policy-andcustom that grand-jury readers present all facts to the grand jurors (doc. 20). it is the City She insists that her complaint alleges that and County s general employ grand-jury readers (Id.). the County s foreseeable policy risk according to officer s report of for Plaintiff, using an current readers unconstitutional that policy to She essentially argues that grand-jury having ensure[s] and only no a arrest reader grand creates jury a because, present the could ever investigate probable cause for identity because the reader would always be limited to the report that was supplied by someone -6- else (Id.). Plaintiff s relief against identify a the complaint County county fails because, official or to state inter alia, entity a it claim for does not responsible for establishing the policy of having readers present information to the grand jury. As Defendant notes, the only County entity remotely implicated in the complaint is the grand jury, which Plaintiff concedes is immune from suit. Absent facts alleging who is responsible for the policy at issue, the complaint fails because it does not set forth a plausible claim. IV. Conclusion Because Plaintiff s complaint fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations from which the Court can infer a plausible claim for relief, Defendant Hamilton County s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 1, 2012 /s/ S. Arthur Spiegel S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge -7-
]]>
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.
