MEARS v. CROSS PLAINS, 3-15-1077. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20160309j26
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND MEMORANDUM TODD J. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I of Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 16), to which Plaintiff has filed a Response (Docket No. 19). Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant City of Cross Plains, Tennessee asks the Court to dismiss Count I, which is entitled Constitutional Violation, because, as a municipality, it cannot be liable for a constitutional violation by one of its employees (in this case,
Summary: ORDER AND MEMORANDUM TODD J. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I of Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 16), to which Plaintiff has filed a Response (Docket No. 19). Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Defendant City of Cross Plains, Tennessee asks the Court to dismiss Count I, which is entitled Constitutional Violation, because, as a municipality, it cannot be liable for a constitutional violation by one of its employees (in this case, ..
More
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I of Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 16), to which Plaintiff has filed a Response (Docket No. 19). Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant City of Cross Plains, Tennessee asks the Court to dismiss Count I, which is entitled Constitutional Violation, because, as a municipality, it cannot be liable for a constitutional violation by one of its employees (in this case, Officer Abernathy) unless Plaintiff shows a particular policy, practice or custom of Defendant which resulted in the alleged constitutional violation. Count I asserts no such policy, practice or custom.
Plaintiff does not disagree. See Docket No. 19. Accordingly, any claim by Plaintiff against Defendant for a constitutional violation is DISMISSED. The paragraphs headed Count I in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall be construed simply as facts alleged and not a separate basis for liability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
