United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.
Wade Hill, Jr., proceeding pro se, brings this action against
defendant City of Forest Park (hereinafter "City")
for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
state law tort of false imprisonment. (Doc. 1). This matter
is before the Court on the City's motion to dismiss (Doc.
7), plaintiffs response in opposition (Doc. 9), and the
City's reply memorandum (Doc. 10).
initiated this action on December 19, 2017. (Complaint, Doc.
1). Plaintiff alleges that he received fifteen
"unjust"' convictions as a result of
prosecutions that were executed without probable cause in
case numbers: C/15/CRB/19343; C/15/CRB/19344; M/14/CRB/12071;
M/14/CRB/22855; M/14/CRB/22856; M/14/CRB/22857;
M/15/CRB/10513; M/15/CRB/11103; M/15/CRB/11104;
M/15/CRB/13574; M/15/CRB/16972; M/15/CRB/26867;
M/17/CRB/24736; M/17/CRB/24738; and M/17/CRB/24739.
(Id. at ¶7). Plaintiff alleges that the City
acted maliciously by "requesting (through deputy
[District Attorney]) extensive sentences totaling 240 days
jail upon obtaining unconstitutional convictions."
(Id. at ¶ 8). Plaintiff further alleges that
the City's "malicious acts" resulted in his
"unjust captivity ... for more than 30 days in jail when
there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. . . ."
(Id. at ¶ 9). Plaintiff alleges that the
City's policy of "invidious discrimination and
malicious prosecution" resulted in the 15 unjust
prosecutions over the last four years. (Id. at
The City's motion to dismiss (Doc. 7)
City moves to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint is barred by the
statute of limitations and the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 7). First, the
City contends that plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is time-barred by the
two-year limitations period set forth in Ohio Rev. Code
§ 2305.10. (Id. at 4). The City claims that at
least five of the underlying charges in plaintiffs malicious
prosecution claim are barred by the two-year statute of
City also contends that plaintiff fails to state a claim for
malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he
has failed to allege that any of the criminal proceedings
terminated in his favor, which is a requisite element for
bringing a malicious prosecution claim. (Id. at 5.).
The City maintains that plaintiff was convicted in fifteen
proceedings, three of which are pending on appeal.
(Id. at 5-6). The City also moves to dismiss
plaintiffs false imprisonment claim for failure to state a
claim for relief because the evidence of probable cause
arising from his convictions defeats a finding of false
imprisonment. (Id. at 6).
response, plaintiff argues that the City fails to
sufficiently dispute the facts in his complaint. (Doc. 9 at
2). Plaintiff argues that the criminal proceedings against
him were facially void because there was no probable cause.
(Id.). In addition, plaintiff argues that five of
his malicious prosecution claims are not barred by the
statute of limitations based on the continuing violations
reply, the City contends that the continuing violations
doctrine is inapplicable because it rarely extends to §
1983 actions and because each proceeding against plaintiff is
a separate and discrete occurrence that does not amount to a
continuing constitutional violation. (Doc. 10 at 1 -2).
Additionally, the City argues that probable cause was
established for each conviction. (Id.).
Rule 12(b)(6) standard
deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
must accept all factual allegations as true and make
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir.
2012) (citingHarbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 575
(6th Cir. 2005)). Only "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief is
required. Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
"[T]he statement need only give the defendant fair
notice of what the . .. claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests." Id. (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Although the plaintiff need not
plead specific facts, the "[f]actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level" and to "state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). A plaintiff must
"plead factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court must hold
pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than those
prepared by attorneys and must liberally construe them when
determining whether they fail to state a claim. See,
e.g., Martin v. Overtoil, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir.
Plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim should be
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim is time-barred