5:19-cv-03044
D. Kan.Apr 24, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Robert Fitzgerald Roberts, Sr., a pro se prisoner-plaintiff, sued “unknown Wichita police officers” and the Wichita Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging illegal stop, search of his vehicle, seizure/loss of cash, wrongful incarceration, and deliberate indifference.
- Facts: while walking to a friend’s house, Roberts was stopped, handcuffed, identified in a field show-up as a robbery suspect, placed in a squad car, and his car was searched without his consent after officers removed his keys.
- Plaintiff alleges officers seized over $10,000 from his car as evidence; he later was told no money had been taken and the alleged victim recanted identification; robbery charge remained pending.
- Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and applied the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard for pro se pleadings.
- The court found multiple pleading defects: Wichita Police Department is not a suable entity; defendants are unnamed/unnumbered; insufficient factual allegations to defeat probable cause for arrest or to show unlawful vehicle search; no pleaded favorable termination for malicious prosecution; no adequate procedural due process or municipal-liability allegations; deliberate indifference claim conclusory.
- Court granted in forma pauperis status but ordered plaintiff to file a complete amended complaint by May 22, 2019 or show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity of Wichita Police Dept. to be sued | Wichita PD named as defendant for officers’ actions | Police department is a subunit, not a legal entity | Dismissal: Wichita PD not a suable entity; City is the proper defendant and requires Monell-type allegations |
| Identification of defendants | Unknown officers committed unconstitutional search/seizure and property loss | Plaintiff failed to identify who did what; must name/number Doe officers | Dismissal: complaint fails to allege which officer did which act; plaintiff must amend to identify defendants or number them and state specific acts |
| False arrest / probable cause | Arrest and detention were wrongful despite field show-up and later recantation | Field show-up identification and other facts can supply probable cause | Dismissal: plaintiff fails to plead facts showing absence of probable cause; identification can establish probable cause as a matter of law in many cases |
| Warrantless vehicle search exception | Officers searched car without consent; search unlawful | Officers had probable cause to search vehicle incident to arrest or based on expectation evidence of robbery would be found | Dismissal: plaintiff fails to allege facts to show lack of fair probability that evidence of the crime would be in the car; Gant allows such searches when reasonable to believe evidence will be found |
| Malicious prosecution | Criminal charges remained pending though witness recanted | No favorable termination alleged | Dismissal: malicious prosecution requires termination in plaintiff’s favor; not pleaded |
| Loss of property / procedural due process | Seized cash lost or unaccounted for; seeks damages | No specific officer or policy alleged; qualified immunity and availability of post-deprivation remedies | Dismissal: fails to plead which officer or municipal policy caused loss; no allegation that post-deprivation remedies were inadequate; claim likely subject to qualified immunity |
| Deliberate indifference | Broad allegation that officers acted with deliberate indifference | Conclusory label without supporting facts | Dismissal: claim is conclusory and insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; legal conclusions not assumed true)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (liberal construction of pro se pleadings but pro se litigants must follow rules)
- Bruner v. Baker, 506 F.3d 1021 (§ 1983 requires deprivation by person acting under color of state law)
- Kaufman v. Higgs, 697 F.3d 1297 (false arrest requires lack of probable cause)
- Myers v. Koopman, 738 F.3d 1190 (malicious prosecution requires favorable termination)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; search permissible if reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime will be found)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242 (complaint must allege who did what to give fair notice)
- Grubbs v. Bailes, 445 F.3d 1275 (contradiction by suspect does not generally vitiate probable cause)