Stroud v. Mitchell (CONSENT)
2:25-cv-00040
| M.D. Ala. | Jul 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiff James Michael Stroud was allegedly injured while being transported in a police car operated by Defendant, Deputy Logan Mitchell, who ran a stop sign and collided with another vehicle.
- Plaintiff claims he was not properly secured in the back seat during the collision.
- Stroud brought five claims: negligence, negligence per se, wantonness, fictitious defendant liability, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court due to the § 1983 claim.
- Defendant moved to dismiss state law claims (counts 1–4) on grounds of Alabama State immunity and improper fictitious party pleading.
- Plaintiff opposed dismissal; briefing was completed and the Court considered the Rule 12(b)(1) (jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state claim) motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Alabama State immunity strip federal court of subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims? | Jurisdiction remains in federal court; immunity is a defense, not a jurisdictional bar. | Defendant claims state immunity deprives court of subject matter jurisdiction. | Court held state immunity is not a jurisdictional bar in federal court; motion denied. |
| Should state law claims be dismissed under 12(b)(6) on grounds of Alabama State immunity? | Defendant didn't provide legal authority; motion not substantiated. | Asserts state immunity applies to bar state law claims. | Motion denied due to lack of supporting argument. |
| Is fictitious party pleading permissible in federal court? | Did not address specifics; used general placeholder language. | Fictitious party pleading is not allowed in federal court. | Fictitious party claim dismissed; rule prohibits it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Rule: Subject matter jurisdiction derives from the Constitution and acts of Congress, not from state law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Standard for facial plausibility in pleadings under Twombly)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Plausibility standard for pleading)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived)
- Williams v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 839 F.3d 1312 (Burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction is on plaintiff)