United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
C. SMITH, JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon Defendant Officer B.
George's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11).
Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to Defendant's
Motion. For the following reasons, Defendant George's
Motion is GRANTED.
David Plumley initiated this case on January 19, 2018,
against Defendants Lapetina, Mayer, and McGuire, all members
of the Franklin County Sheriff's Office, and Defendant
George, a Columbus Police Officer. Plaintiff asserts that on
January 19, 2016, he was driving his vehicle Eastbound on
Glenchester Drive approaching Hilliard Rome Road when he
suffered a seizure due to his ongoing medical conditions,
which include brain cancer. Plaintiff drove through a stop
sign and crashed his vehicle into a yard at 344 Hilliard Rome
respect to Defendant George, Plaintiff alleges: “10.
Defendant George observed the incident and followed the
Plaintiff's car. . . .” (Doc. 2, Am. Compl. ¶
10). In the four causes of action asserted by Plaintiff, he
alleges three (first, third and fourth) against Defendants
generally, but does not make any specific allegations against
Defendant George other than what is noted above.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are
closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move
for judgment on the pleadings.” The standard of review
for a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c)
is the same as that used to address a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6). Id.; Lindsay v. Yates, 498
F.3d 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2007).
12(b)(6) permits dismissal of a lawsuit for “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To
meet this standard, a party must allege sufficient facts to
state a claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). A pleading will satisfy this plausibility standard if
it contains “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In considering whether
a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must “construe the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations
as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff.” Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund v.
Standard & Poor's Fin. Servs. LLC, 700 F.3d 829,
835 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Directv, Inc. v.
Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007)). However,
“the tenet that a court must accept a complaint's
allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of
a cause of action's elements, supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
663. Thus, while a court is to afford plaintiff every
inference, the pleading must still contain facts sufficient
to “provide a plausible basis for the claims in the
complaint;” a recitation of facts intimating the
“mere possibility of misconduct” will not
suffice. Flex Homes, Inc. v. Ritz-Craft Corp of Mich.,
Inc., 491 Fed.Appx. 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2012);
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
“[f]or purposes of a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the
pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and
the motion may be granted only if the moving party is
nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577,
581 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Ohio Bank v. Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 479 F.2d 478,
480 (6th Cir. 1973)).
George moves for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff's
claims against him, which include: Count 1 (violation of the
Fourth Amendment for excessive force during his arrest);
Count 3 (violation of the Eighth Amendment for failure to
provide necessary medical treatment); and Count 4 (negligent
infliction of emotional distress).
only allegations against Defendant George are that he was a
Columbus police officer at the time of the incident and that
he observed the incident and followed Plaintiff's car.
Defendant George argues that assuming all allegations are
true for purposes of construing the motion for judgment on
the pleadings, Plaintiff has failed to allege any misconduct
by Officer George so that he could be held liable under the
Fourth or Eighth Amendments, or that he negligently inflicted
emotional distress. Plaintiff has failed to respond to
careful review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the
Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege
any actions by Defendant George to maintain claims for
violation of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments or for
negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's
claims are directed at Defendants generally. The Sixth
Circuit “has consistently held that damage claims
against government officials arising from alleged violations
of constitutional rights must allege, with particularity,
facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to
violate the asserted constitutional right.” Lanman
v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Terrance v. Northville Reg'l Psychiatric Hosp.,
286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002)) (emphasis in original).
“[C]ategorical references to
‘Defendants'” do not meet this standard.
Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 596-97
(6th Cir. 2012). Nor do allegations that an individual
defendant “was present ...