Smith v. Roundtree
2:15-cv-00004
| S.D. Ga. | Oct 14, 2015Background
- Russell and Lynette Smith (South Carolina residents) allege that Darien police officers (Roundtree, Davis, Brown) coerced them on April 8, 2013 to relinquish property by falsely claiming a court order and threatening arrest.
- The Smiths sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; counsel conceded at hearing that only the Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim remained viable.
- Roundtree moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting insufficiently pleaded facts and qualified immunity.
- The City of Darien moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) and argued that municipal liability based on respondeat superior is not available under § 1983.
- The Smiths moved for default against Darien for an alleged failure to respond; Darien had been served by the City Clerk (Priscilla Taylor), which the court found improper under Georgia law and Rule 4(j)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Complaint states a Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim against Roundtree | Smiths: Roundtree falsely asserted a non-existent court order and threatened arrest, causing surrender of property | Roundtree: Complaint lacks well-pleaded facts; qualified immunity protects him | Court: Claim adequately pleaded; denied dismissal as to Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure |
| Whether Roundtree is entitled to qualified immunity | Smiths: Right to be free from seizure based on a false court order was clearly established | Roundtree: His actions fall within discretionary authority and are shielded by qualified immunity | Court: Right was clearly established; qualified immunity not resolved in defendant's favor at this stage |
| Whether Darien was properly served under Rule 4(j)(2) and Georgia law | Smiths: Process was served on City Clerk (Taylor) | Darien: Service on City Clerk by plaintiffs' counsel was improper and Georgia law limits who may accept service | Court: Service was improper (attorney served process; clerk not authorized); dismissal for insufficient service granted |
| Whether Darien can be held liable under § 1983 on respondeat superior theory | Smiths: Alleged City liable for conduct of its officers | Darien: § 1983 bars respondeat superior municipal liability | Court: Plaintiffs conceded § 1983 bars respondeat superior; Darien dismissed on this basis as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising claim above speculative level)
- Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity framework and protection scope)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
- Terrell v. Smith, 668 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (discretionary-function requirement for qualified-immunity analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified-immunity test and court discretion on prongs)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (conduct so obviously unconstitutional that prior case law may be unnecessary to deny immunity)