Clem v. Jenkins et al, No. 3:2018cv00049 - Document 26 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/11/19. (hnw) Modified on 1/11/2019 (hnw).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clem v. Jenkins et al Doc. 26 cœ RK's OFFICEU.S.DIST.K URT AT> Oc ,VA FILED JAh 1 12210 IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT F0R THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOU ESVILLE DIV ISION JUm C.DUDLEY CLERK BY; STEVEN E.CLEM , Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.3:18CV00049 V. M EM O M NDU M O PINIO N SCOTT H .JEN KINS,individually and in hisofficialcapacity asSheriffof CulpeperCounty,V irginia,etal., By:H on.G len E.Conrad SeniorUnited States DistrictJudge D efendant. In the instant action,which w as rem oved from the Circuit Courtof Culpeper County, StevenClem assertsclaimsunder42U.S.C.j1983andVirginialaw againstScottJenkins,M ason M ays,Brent Coffey,Charles Burgoon,Jam es Fox,the Com m onw ea1th of Virginia, and four unknow n defendants.' The case is presently before the court on m otions to dism iss filed by Jenkins,M ays,Coffey,Fox,and the Com m onwealth.z Forthereasonsthatfollow , theplaintiff's claimsunderj 1983 willbe dismissed withoutprejudice pursuantto FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thecourtwilldeclineto exercisesupplementaljurisdiction overthestate law claimsatthistime,dismissthoseclaimswithoutprejudice,andpermittheplaintifftofilean am ended com plaint. lAn additionaldefendant,CulpeperCounty,wasdism issed from the case priorto rem oval. 2TherecordrevealsthatBurgoonhasnotbeenservedwithprocessandthatthetimeforeffectingservicehas exqired. Consequently,iftheplaintiffelectstofileanamendedcomplaintthatnamesBurgoonasadefendant,the plalntiffwillbeorderedtoshow causewhytheclaimsagainstBurgoon shouldnotbedism issedunderFederalRuleof CivilProcedure4(m). See.e.a..Boldenv.CitvofToneka.441F.3d 1129,1142(10thCir.2006)((((T)he120-day periodprovidedbyRule4(m)isnotrestartedbythefilingofanamendedcomplaintexceptastothosedefendants newlyaddedintheamendedcomplaint''). Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 13 Pageid#: 292 Dockets.Justia.com FactualBackzround The follow ing factualallegations,taken from theplaintiff'scom plaiht,are accepted astrue forpurposesofthependingmotions. SeeEricksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,94 (2007)(%ç(W )hen rulingonadefendant'smotiontodismiss,ajudgemustacceptastruea11ofthefactualallegations containedinthecomplaint.''). Clem is employed by the Sheriff of Spottsylvunia County. O n June 23,2016,he and Tim othy Chilton,a police oftscer for the Tow n of Culpeper,visited two vineyards w ith their respective girlfriends. Overthe course of the afternoon,Clem Csconsum ed two sm allglasses of wine.'' Compl.jg13,Dkt.No.1-1. The group left the vineyards in separate vehicles driven by Clem and Chilton. At approxim ately 5:43 p.m .,w hile driving w estbound on V irginia Route 3 in Culpeper County, Chilton pulled over onto the shoulder of the road,and Clem follow ed behind him . Chilton's girlfriend gotinto theback ofClem 'svehicle,so thatChilton could drive straightto w ork. Sdsoon thereafter,Clem drovehiscarontotheroadwayin frontof(aqsherifiscardriven by (Charlesq Burgoon.'' Id.!16. Clem alleges that Burgoon,w ho was then em ployed as a Culpeper County Sheriff's deputy,m istakenly believed thatClem had driven offthe roadway when,in fact,he had reentered thetraffic lane from aparked position. Perceiving Clem 'sdriving to beerratic,Burgoon initiated a traffic stop. Clem pulled overim m ediately in a nearby parking Iot. UponapproachingClem'svehicle,Burgoontçdetectedanodorofalcoholin(the)vehicle,'' and indicated thathe ççsuspected thatClem wasdriving w hile underthe intluence ofalcohol.'' Id. !18. DuringhisinteractionswithClem,BurgoondiscoveredthatChilton'sgirlfriendwasinthe vehicle. Burgoon then called forassistance from the Virginia State Police,purportedly because Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 2 of 13 Pageid#: 293 hew asaware oftheSspoliticalrivalry''between Chilton and ScottJenkins,the SheriffofCulpeper County. 1(. 1aj20. WhileBurgoonwaswaitingforassistance,JamesFoxandfourotherunknown deputiesappearedonthescene. J. IJ.,!21. M ason M ays,a Virginia State Police trooper,subsequently anived atapproxim ately 5:55 p. m.andC sconferredwi thBurgoon. ''1d.!24.UnlikeBurgoon,SaysS' claimedtodetectastrong odorofalcohol(emitting)from Clem'sperson,''ratherthanthevehicleitself. 1d.!27. M ays directedClem todsblow intoaportablebreathtestmachine.'' ld.!28. Priortodoingso,tsM ays did notread the im plied consent law''to the plaintiff. ld. Clem ,w ho was using sm okeless tobacco at the tim e, Ssasked M ays to w ait ten m inutes to allow the residualm outh alcohol to dissipate,butM aysrefused.'' 1d. Afterthe portable breath testSipurportedly registered a breath alcoholcontentof0.111percent,''M aysplaced Clem underarrestfordriving underthe influence. 1d.!!29,33. M aysthen transported Clem to the CulpeperPolice Departm entforthe perform ance ofan ççevidentiarybreathtest.'' Ld. us!37. Clem allegesthathissmokelesstobaccorenderedtheresults oftheportablebreathtestinvalid,andthathetcrepeatedlystatedhisdesiretotaketherevidentiary) breathtestin ordertoprovethathewassober.'' Id.!!36,39. Maysbegan administeringthe evidentiary breath test atapproxim ately 7:25 p.m . A lthough Clem was S'cooperative,''M ays dsabruptly aborted the breath testbefore com pleting it''and advised dispatch thathe w as going to transportClem tothehospitalforabloodtest. Id.!!40,43. W hile en routeto the hospital,SsM aysreceived a telephone calland then abruptly changed course and droveto the magistrate'soffice insteàd ofthehospital.'' 1d.! 47. Burgoon was waiting atthem agistrate'sofficew hen M aysarrived w ith Clem . itl M aysand Burgoon soughtand obtainedamisdemeanorDUIwarrantagainstClem.'' JZ !49. Maysalso(ssoughtandobtained Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 3 of 13 Pageid#: 294 a civilrefusalsum m ons against Clem on the basis of the false claim that Clem had given an insufficientbreath sample''during theadministration ofthe evidentiary breath test. 1d.! 50. Both the DU Icharge and the civilrefusalsumm onswereultim ately dism issed on October4,2016. 1d.!53. ProceduralH istory On June 4, 2018, Clem filed the instant action in state coul' t against Jenkins,M ays, Burgoon, Coffey,Fox,Culpeper County, the Com m onw ea1th of Virginia, and four unknow n defendants. The complaintincludesthe following claims:false arrest(CountOne);battery (CountTwo);false imprisonment(CountThree);civilconspiracy (CountFour);violation of FourthAmendmentrightsunder42 U.S.C.j 1983 (CountFive);maliciousprosecution (Count Six);andgrossnegligence(CountEightl-3 On June 27,2018,the state courtgranted Culpeper County's dem urrer. The action was thenremovedtothiscourtonthebasisoffederalquestionjurisdiction. Jenkins,Mays,Coffey, Fox,and the Com m onw ealth ofV irginia have since m oved to dism issthe com plaintunderRule 12(b)(6). In hiswritten response to the defendants'motions,Clem acltnowledged thatthe com plaintpresently containsinsufficientfactualallegationsto statea claim againstFox,Coffey,or the Com monwealth, and he requested that the claim s against these defen'dants be dism issed withoutprejudice. Clem likewiseacknowledgedthathiscurrentcomplaintfailstostateclaims forbattery,civilconspiracy,and grossnegligence againstM aysand Jenkins,and he requegted that theseclaimsbedismissedwithoutprejudice. The courtheld ahearing on thepending m otionson October2,2018. D uring thehearing, Clem indicated that he possesses substantial additional facts that were not included in the 3 The complaintcontainsno CountSeven. Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 4 of 13 Pageid#: 295 complaint that w as originally filed in state court. Accordingly,Clem requested thatthe court granthim leave to am end any claim sthatare found to be inadequately pled. The matter isnow ripefordisposition. StandardsofReview Rule12(b)(6)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurepermitsapartytoseekdismissalfor failuretostateaclaim uponwhichreliefcanbegranted. Sçl-hepurposeofaRule12(b)(6)motion istotestthesufficiencyofacomplaint.'' Edwardsv.CityofGoldsboro.178F.3d231,243(4th Cir.1999). Whendecidingamotiontodismissunderthisrule,thecourtmustacceptastrueall well-pleaded allegations and draw al1 reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Erickson,55lU.S.at94. çdW hileacomplaintattackedbyaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismissdoes not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintifps obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlem entto reliefrequires m ore than labels and conclusions,and a form ulaic recitation ofthe elementsofacauseofactionwillnotdo.'' BellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007) (internalcitationandquotationmarksomitted). Tosurvivedismissalforfailuretostateaclaim, $$acomplaintm ustcontain sufficientfactualm atter,accepted astrue,to tstate aclaim forreliefthat isplausibleon itsface.''' Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingTwombly,550 U.S.at570). Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party m ay am end his pleadingwithleaveofcourqwhichshallbefreelygivenwhenjusticesorequires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuithasheldthatSsleavetoamend shouldbedeniedonlywhentheamendmentwouldbeprejpdicialtotheopposingparty,therehas been bad faith on the partofthe m oving party,or am endm entw ould be futile.'' M atrix Capital M gmt.Fund.LPv.Bearinapoint.Inc.,576F.3d172,193(4thCir.2009). Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 5 of 13 Pageid#: 296 D iscussion 1. Claim s under federalIaw ThecourtwillfirstaddressClem'sclaimsunder42 U.S.C.j 1983,which imposescivil liability on any person acting under color of state law to deprive another person of rights and privilegessecuredbytheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates. Seç42U.S.C.j1983. ln CountFive,theplaintiffclaimsthathe wasarrested w ithoutprobable causeby Burgoon and M ays in violation ofhis rights underthe Fourth A m endm ent,and thatBurgoon and M ays ddacted atthe behestofJenkins''in arresting him. Compl.!! 76,81;see also id.! 42 (asserting,upon infonmationandbelietthatçslenkinspressuredBurgoontoarrestC1em''). Clem alsoclaimsthat he w as 'ssmaliciously prosecuted by Jenkins, M ays and Burgoon,'' and that these defendants Sçactged)in concertwithCoffey,JohnDoes 1-4,andFox''in obtaining$+0thcriminaland çivil process''againsthim. ld.!77. Jenkins,Mays,Coffey,andFoxmovedto dismissCountFiveunderRule 12(b)(6). As indicated above, Clem acknowledged in response to the defendants' m otions that the current com plaintdoes not contain sufficientfactualallegations to state a claim against Coffey or Fox. A lthough the plaintiffopposed the defendants'm otionsw ith respectto the claim sagainstJenkins and M ays,the courtconcludes,forthe following reasons,thatthe com plaintfailsto state a claim againstany oftheindividualdefendants/ Sc-f' he Fourth A m endm entprohibits law enforcem entofficers from m aking unreasonable seizures,and the seizure of an individualeffected withoutprobable cause is unreasonable.'' 4Burgoon, for whom no proof ofservice has been provided,hasnotm oved fordism issal. N or have the unidentifieddefendants. Nonetheless,thecourtwillsuaspontedismissthe j 1983claimsagainstthesedefendapts forthereasonssetforthherein. SeeErilineCo.S.A.v.Johnson,440F.3d642,655n.10(4thCir.2006)(çdWherea complaintplainly failstostateaclaim forreliefadistrictcourthas$nodiscretion'buttodismissit.'')(citing54 CharlesAlanWright& ArthurR.Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure91357(2ded.1990( 9;seealsoTavlorv. Acxiom Corp.,6l2F.3d325,340(5thCir.2010)($$Whilethedistrictcourtdiddismisssuaspontesomedefendants whodidnotjointhemotiontodismiss,thereisnoprejudicetotheplaintiffsinaffinningthejudgmentinitsentirety becausetheplaintiffsmakethesameallegationsagainstalldefendants.n). 6 Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 6 of 13 Pageid#: 297 Brooksv.CityofW inston-salem,85F.3d178,183(4thCir.1996)(citingGraham v.Connor,490 U.S.386,396-97 (1989). The United States Coul'tof Appeals forthe Fourth Circuithas explainedthatStlajclaim forfalsearrestallegesthatawarrantlessarrestlackedprobablecause,'' whereas $<a claim for maliciousprosecution alleges thatan arrestmade pursuantto a warrant lackedprobablecause.'' Smithv.Mundav,848F.3d248,257(4thCir.2017). Thus,aplaintiff m ustallege facts dem onstrating thathe was arrested w ithoutprobable cause to state a claim for falsearrestormaliciousprosecutionunderj1983. See Streetv.Surdyka,492 F.2d 368,372-73 (4th Cir.1974)(sçl-fqhereisno causeofaction fortfalse an-est'undersection 1983 unlessthe arresting offscer lacked probable cause.'');see also Smith, 848 F.3d at257 (ç$A malicious prosecution claim under j 1983 is properly understood as a Fourth Amendmentclaim for unreasonable seizure which incorporates certain elem ents ofthe com m on law tort. To state such aclaim,aplaintiffmustallegethatthedefendant(1)caused(2)aseizureoftheplaintiffpursuant to legalprocess unsupported by probable cause,and (3) criminalproceedingstenninated in plaintiffsfavor.'')(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted). Clem firstcontendsthatM aysand Burgoon lacked probable cause to arresthim fordriving whileintoxicated. TheSupremeCoul'tççrepeatedlyhasexplainedthatSprobablecause'tojustify an arrest m eans facts and circum stances w ithin the officer's know ledge that are sufficient to warranta prudentperson,orone ofreasonable caution,in believing,in the circum stancesshown, thatthe suspecthas com m itted,is com m itting,or is aboutto com m itan offense.'' M ichiaan v. DeFillirmo,443 U.S.31,37 (1979). ltEtrequiresmorethan (baresuspicionn'''but$;lessthan evidencenecessarytoconvict. Porterfieldv.Lott,156F.3d563,569(4thCir.1988). Morrover, the Suprem e Courthas m ade clear thathindsightm ay not be em ployed in evaluating probable . cause. SeeFloridav.Harris,568U.S.237,249(2013)rçAndstillmorefundamentally,wedonot Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 7 of 13 Pageid#: 298 evaluateprobablecauseinhindsight....''). Accordingly,anofficer'sreasonablemistakeoffact does notdefeathis determ ination ofprobable cause. See.e.g.,U nited Statesv.W illiam s,85 F. App'x341,347(4thCir.2004)(çThefactthattheoftscerswerefactuallymistakendidnotrender thestopillegal....<Anofficer'sreasonablemistakeoffactmayprovidetheobjectivegroundsfor reasonablesuspicionorprobablecauserequiredtojustifyatrafficstop ....''')(quotingUnited Statesv.Chanthasouxat,342F.3d1271,1276(11thCir.2003)). UnderV irginia law ,it is Ssunlaw fulforany person to drive oroperate any m otorvehicle . . . (i)whilesuchpersonhasabloodalcoholconcentrationof0.08percentormorebyweightby volum e or0.08 gram sorm oreper210 litersofbreath as indicated by achem icaltestadm inistered asprovidedinthisarticle,''orçttii)whilesuchpersonisundertheintluenceofalcohol.'' Va.Code j18.2-266. Whenastateorlocallaw enforcementofficerhasprobablecausetosuspectaperson ofdrivingwhileintoxicatedinviolationofj18.2-266,theoffkermayarrestthepersonwithouta warrantw ithin three hours of the alleged offense,ç'whetherornotthe offense w as com m itted in suchoffcer'spresence.'' Va.Codej19.2-8l(D). VirginiaCodej18.2-j67providesthatanypersonsuspectedofdrivingwhileintoxicated ççshallbe entitled, if such equipm ent is available,to have his breath analyzed to determ ine the probablealcoholiccontentofhisblood.'' Va.Codej18.2-267(A). Thestatutefurtherprovides thatSsgwlheneverthebreathsampleanalysisindicatesthatalcoholispresentintheperson'sblood, theofficermaychargethepersonwithEdrivingwhileintoxicatedl.'' 1d.j18.2-267(17). Virginia appellatecourtshave explained thatEtltlhefunction ofthe preliminary breath testunderCode 5 18.2-267 isto providean independentmeansto determineand resolvequestionsconcerning probablecause.'' Jonesv.Town ofMarion,508 S.E.2d 921,923 (Va.Ct.App.1999). E$By providing in Code j 18.2-267 thatthe officermay charge an individualwith driving while 8 Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 8 of 13 Pageid#: 299 intoxicated on the basis ofthe results ofa prelim inary breath test,the legislature has recognized thatthistestisreasonably trustw orthy to show thataperson hasconsum ed alcoholforpurposesof determ ining whether probable cause exists to m ake an arrest.'' Stacv v.Com m onw ealth,470 S.E.2d584,586(Va.Ct.App.1996);seealsoid.id.at587($$TheclearpurposeofsubsectionD, which authorizestheoffcertochargeasuspectwhosepreliminarybreath testregisterspositivefor consumption ofalcohol,isto recognize thatthe testissufficiently reliable to prove thata person hasconsum ed alcoholand thatthefactofconsum ption m ay furnish reason to believe thataperson isintoxicated.''). Accordingly,(slilfthe breath analysisrevealsthatalcoholispresentin the suspect'sblood,thepoliceoftscerm ay arrestthe suspect.'' 1d.at586;see also Com m onw ea1th v. Stewart,91Va.Cir.164(Va.Cir.Ct.2015)(ssBasedonStewart'sgpreliminarybreathtest)results, thepoliceofficerhadprobablecausetoarrestherfordrivingwhileintoxicated.''l.s Upon review of the record and applicable caselaw ,the court concludes that the facts alleged in Clem 'scom plaintdo notplausibly suggestthatM aysorBurgoon lacked probable cause to arrestClem fordriving underthe intluence. Clem acknowledges in the com plaintthathe had consum ed tw o glasses of w ine prior to driving;that Burgoon believed,albeit m istakenly,that Clem had erratically driven offthe roadw ay;thatBurgoon detected the odorofalcoholem anating from Clem 'svehicle;thatBurgoon conferred w ith M ays upon the trooper'sarrival;and thatM ays reported detecting the odor of alcoholem anating from Clem 's person. See.e.2.,W ohlford v. Commonwealth,351S.E.2d 47,49 (Va.Ct.App.1986)($(The moderatesmellofalcohol,the mannerin w hich the vehicle wasoperated,and the adm ission ofconsum ption ofalcoholprovided probable cause forthe arrest.''l. Additionally,and perhapsmostimportantly,the complaint 5Althoughtheresultsofapreliminarybreathtestarenotadmissibleattrialforpurgosesofprovingguilt,Va. Code9 12.2-267(E),VirginiaapgellatecourtsSdhaveheld thattheresultsofthepreliminary breathtestmay be admitted into evidence ata pretrlalprobable cause orsuppression hearing. '' W oolridce v.Commonwealth,512 S.E.2d153,157(Va.Ct.App.1999)(citingStacv.470S.E.2dat587). Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 9 of 13 Pageid#: 300 indicatesthatthe prelim inary breath testperformed on the scene revealed a blood alcoholcontent above the legallim it. W hile Clem allegesthathisrecentwine consum ption and use ofsm okeless tobaccoGçrenderedtheportablebreathtestinvalid,''Compl.!31,such aconclusory statementis insufficientto fdraise arightto reliefabovethe speculative level.''6 Twom blv, 550 U.S.at555;see also Painter'sM illGrille.LLC v.Brown,716 F.3d 342,350 (4th Cir.2013)(ç(1tisnow well established that m ere conclusory and speculative allegations are not sufficient to w ithstand a motion to dismiss.'')(citing Twombly and lqbal). The same istrue forClem'sassertion that BurgoonandMaysunlawfullySûactedatthebehestofJenkinsinarrestinghim.'' 1d.jg81;seealso lqbal,556 U.S.at678 (emphasizingthatthefederulpleading standard çidemandsmorethan an unadorned,the-defendant-unlawfully-ha= ed-meaccusation''). ln sum ,the courtis constrained to conclude that the com plaint lacks sufficient factual content from w hich the court could reasonably infer that Clem 's arrest for driving w hile intoxicated wasunsupported by probable cause. A ccordingly,Clem 's claim offalse arrestunder j 1983 issubjecttodismissalunderRule12(b)(6),asishisclaim thatthathewasmaliciously prosecuted fordriving while intoxicated. See Smith,848 F.3d at253 (analyzing malicious prosecution claim underj 1983 forCtwhethertherewasprobable causeto arrestSmith''). ln reaching thisdecision,thecourtrecognizesthatClem allegesthatM aysççfalselyswlorejinhis criminalcomplaintthatClem had given a deficientsample on the gevidentiary)breath test'' administeredatthepolicedepartment. Compl.!49. However,Clem doesnotcontendthatthe issuance ofthe w arrantfordriving while intoxicated w asSçpredicated solely''on thisalleged false 6 Clem alsoallegesthatGM aysdidnotreadtheim pliedconsentlaw''priortoadm inisteringtheprelim inary breathtest. Compl.!28. WhileVirginiaCodeû12.2-267(12)requires1aw enforcementofficerstoadviseaperson oftherighttorefusetotakeapreliminarybreathtest,Rthefailuretocomply(withthisprovision)doesnot,standing alone,invalidatethearrestorrenderthesubsequentlyadm inisteredbloodorbreathtestinadm issible.'' W ohlfordv. CommonweaIth.351S.E.2d47,49(Va.1926). 10 Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 10 of 13 Pageid#: 301 statement. Manuelv.City ofJoliet,137 S.Ct.911,918 (2017). Nordoesthe complaint plausibly suggestthatsuch statem entwas necessary to establish probable cause in supportofthe issuance ofthe warrant. See W ilkes v.Young,28 F.3d 1362,1365 (4th Cir.1994)(çç1tis w ell-established thata false or m isleading statem entin a w anantam davitdoes notconstitute a FourthAmendmentviolationunlessthestatementisnecessarytothefindingofprobablecause.''). To the extentthatClem also alleges thatthe individualdefendants Sçsoughtand obtained a civil refusal sum m ons against Clem on the basis of the false claim that Clem had given an insufficientbreath sam ple,''appellate courtshavem adeclearthatt<asum m onsalone isinsuffcient to supportaFourth Am endm entseizure claim .'' Glassv.A nneA rundelCty.,716 F.A pp'x 179, l80n.l(4thCir.2018)(collectingcases);seealsoRyuv.W hitten,684F.App'x308,311(4thCir. 2017)($$A summonsrequiringnomorethanacourtappearance,withoutadditionalrestrictions, doesnotconstituteaFourthAmendmentseizure.'')(collectingcases);Bielanskiv.Cty.ofKane, 550F.3d632,642(7thCir.2009)(:tNocourthasheldthatasummonsaloneconstitutesaseizure, and we conclude that a sum m ons alone does not equal a seizure for Fourth Am endm ent purposes.''). Consequently,based on the current allegations,the courtconcludes that the com plaintdoes notstate a plausible claim form aliciousprosecution arising from the issuance ofa summonsforaciviloffense. Compl.!50;seealsoVa.Codej18.2-268.34A)($$1tisunlawfulfor apersonwhoisarrestedforaviolationofjl8.2-266...tounreasonablyrefusetohavesamplesof hisbreathtakenforchemicalteststodeterminethealcoholcontentofhisblood asrequiredby j 18.2-268.2....A firstviolation(ofthissubsection)isaciviloffense.''). Forthese reasons,thecourtw illgrantthepending m otionsto dism issw ith respectto Count Five, This count, as currently pled,fails to state a viable claim for false arrest or m alicious prosecution under the Fourth A m endm ent, particularly in light of the standards set forth in Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 11 of 13 Pageid#: 302 Twom bly and Igbal.7 w hilethe courtquestionswhetherCountFivecould be am ended to survive a subsequent m otion to dism iss, Clem indicated during the hearing that there are substantial additional facts that could be alleged in support of his original claim s. Based on Clem 's representations,the liberalpolicy favoring am endm ent,and thefactthatthecurrentcom plaintwas draftedtocomplywithstate,ratherthanfederal,pleadingstanbards,thecourtwilldismissCount FivewithoutprejudiceandpermitClem tofsleanamendedcomplaint. Seepe.:.,UnitedStatesex rel.W ilsonv.KelloaRBrown& Root.lnc.,525F.3d370,376(4thCir.2008)(notingthatleaveto amendtsshouldbegrantedliberally''underRule15). 1I. C laim s under state Iaw ln light ofthe court's disposition ofthe federalclaim s asserted in CountFive,the court declinestoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionovertheplaintiff'sstatelaw claimsatthistimeand willdismissthoseclaimswithoutprejudice. See28U.S.C.j 1367(c)(3)(authorizingadistrict courttodeclinetoexercisesupplementaljurisdictionwhenittthasdismissedallclaimsoverwhich ithasoriginaljurisdiction''). However,iftheplaintiffelectstofileanamendedcomplaintunder j1983,hemayreassertanysupplementalclaimsunderstate1aw thathebelievesaresupportedby the factual allegations contained therein. See. e.a., H odae v. Cordish Cos. lnc.. N o. l:17-cv-00254,2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 109531,at*18 (D.Md.July l4,2017)(declining to exercisesupplementaljurisdictionoverclaimsunderstatelaw butpermittingplaintifftoreassert suchclaimsifhefiledanamendedcomplaintthatstatedaviablefederalclaim). Conclusion Forthe reasons stated,the courtw illgrantthe pending motions to dism iss with respectto theplaintiff'sclaimsunderj 1983 and dismissthoseclaimswithoutprejudice. Theremaining 1In lightofthe foregoing analysis,the courtneed notaddressthe Eleventh Amendmentand qualified imm unity argumentsmadeby Jenkinsand M ays. Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 12 of 13 Pageid#: 303 clnlmqlmderstatelawW llbedlsmissedwiioutpreludicepursnnntto28U.S.C.j1367(c)(3),and theplainti/ willbegranted leavetoSle an amendedcomple t. TheClerk isdirectedto sendcoplesofthism emorandum opinion andtheaccompanying orderto allconnqelofrecord. DATED:This(lY day ofJanuary, 2019. SeiorUnited SutesDlstrictJudge 13 Case 3:18-cv-00049-GEC Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 13 of 13 Pageid#: 304
]]>
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.
