United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
AARON POLSTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Doc #: 8.
Standard of Review
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).
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).
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.