Nash v. Bacich
2:24-cv-00442
E.D. Wis.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Monica Nash, proceeding pro se, alleged that Milwaukee County officials, including Deputy Shawn Bacich, mishandled the investigation of a hit-and-run incident where Nash was the victim.
- Nash claimed that the defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by mishandling the case and covering up the alleged crime, including disregarding evidence and making misleading reports.
- The Crime Victims Rights Board found that Bacich had violated Nash's victim rights under Wisconsin law, and the department disciplined him for his handling of Nash’s case.
- Nash filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging intentional discrimination and deprivation of her rights under color of law, but her complaint lacked specific allegations regarding discrimination based on race, gender, or class-of-one status.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) (lack of standing) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), and to exclude some documents Nash submitted in opposition to the motion.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude, dismissed Nash’s Second Amended Complaint without prejudice, and granted Nash leave to file a third amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Jurisdiction under Article III | Nash suffered injury as a victim of police misconduct | No cognizable injury; no right to police investigation | Nash's claim can proceed on equal protection theory; not dismissed on standing |
| Equal Protection: Protected Class | Defendants discriminated based on race and gender | No well-pled allegations of discrimination | Nash's complaint lacks specific facts, so fails to state protected class claim |
| Equal Protection: Class-of-One | Nash was singled out for worse treatment | No facts showing she was treated differently or arbitrarily | Claim fails; complaint does not allege facts showing animus or differential treatment |
| Consideration of Extra-Pleading Material | All evidence supports and clarifies her claims | Only referenced/central documents allowed | Only crash report and October 2021 suspension notice considered; other docs excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard; factual allegations must raise plausible claim)
- Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (per curiam) (standard for class-of-one equal protection claims)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (no constitutional right to adequate police protection)
- Hilon v. City of Wheeling, 209 F.3d 1005 (equal protection clause does not require police protection)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)