Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Moore

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 6, 2019

DEMETRIUS MOORE Plaintiff,
v.
TORRIS MOORE, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          DAN AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Before the Court is Defendant the City of East Cleveland, Ohio's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Doc #: 3. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and Denied in part.

         I. Background

         On or around February 8, 2011, Defendants Torris Moore and Antonia Malone executed a search warrant for 13505 Woodworth, Apartment #2, Cleveland, Ohio. Doc #: 1 at 3. During the search of the premises, Defendants Moore and Malone allegedly seized items and arrested Plaintiff Demetrius Moore. Doc #: 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff was indicted in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on February 22, 2011 on one count of trafficking drugs in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.03.A(1), two counts of trafficking drugs in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.03A(2), two counts of drug possession in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2925.11.A, one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.13.A(3), and one count of Possessing Criminal Tools in violation of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.24.A. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-11-547165-B. On February 25, 2011, Defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-11-547165-B, nondocument order dated 2/25/2011. On August 22, 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking drugs and one count of having weapons while under disability. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-11-547165-B, nondocument order dated 8/22/2011. Defendant was sentenced to four years in prison. Id.

         On December 13, 2016, the State of Ohio filed a motion to vacate conviction and sentence. Doc #: 3-1. In the attached brief, the State of Ohio explained that the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor was no longer confident in Plaintiff's conviction because Defendants Malone and Moore “were convicted on charges relating to police misconduct, including conspiracy and making false statements.” Doc #: 3-1 at 2. On July 18, 2017, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to vacate conviction and sentence. Doc #: 8-1.

         On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc #: 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Moore and Malone are individually liable under § 1983 because they: (1) obtained the search warrant on 13505 Woodworth, Apartment #2, Cleveland, Ohio based on false allegations; (2) executed a search warrant that they knew was not valid; (3) intended to appropriate cash by executing the search warrant; (4) seized several items, including cash, some of which they kept for themselves; (5) falsely arrested Plaintiff; and (6) knowingly made false statements to the Grand Jury that indicted Plaintiff. Doc #: 1 at 2-5.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant the City of East Cleveland, Ohio is liable under § 1983 because it: (1) knew or should have known of the unconstitutional activities of its officers and should have taken steps to stop the illegal conduct and (2) did not properly train its officers. Doc #: 1 at 5-6.

         On October 8, 2019, Defendant the City of East Cleveland, Ohio filed a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Doc #: 3. Plaintiff filed a Response on November 11, 2019. Doc #: 5-1. The City of East Cleveland, Ohio filed a Reply on November 27, 2019. Doc #: 7. Plaintiff filed an Addendum to his Response on December 3, 2019.[1] Doc #: 8.

         II. Standard of Review

         A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Little v. UNUM Provident Corp., 196 F.Supp.2d 659, 662 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Shoup v. Doyle, 974 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1071 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (citing Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2012). In addition to the complaint, a Court may consider “materials [that] are public records or are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial notice.” New Eng. Health Care Emples. Pension Fund v. Ernst & Young LLP, 336 F.3d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Facts may be judicially noticed when they are not subject to reasonable dispute because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed Rules Evid R. 201(b)(2).

         A court may grant a motion to dismiss if, on the face of the complaint, there is an insurmountable bar to relief indicating that the plaintiff does not have a claim. Little, 196 F.Supp.2d at 662 (citation omitted).

         III. Discussion

         Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Doc #: 3 at 1. This argument implicates two questions: (A) what the applicable statute of limitations is and (B) when the statute of limitations began to run.

         A. Applicable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.