Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Newman v. Show Low Police Department

United States District Court, D. Arizona

March 6, 2014

Joe Newman, Plaintiff,
v.
Show Low Police Department; Steve L. Williams; Jason O. Spears; Shawn T. Roby; Cory L. Fechtelkotter; Kenneth E. Douglass; Jeff McNeil; Torel Nichols, Defendants.

ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are Defendants Steven L. Williams, Jason O. Spears, Shawn T. Roby, Cory L. Fechtelkotter, Kenneth E. Douglass, and Jeff McNeil's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) as well as Defendant Torel Nichols' Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30).[1] The Court now rules on the motions.

I. Background

Plaintiff initially filed a complaint alleging that City of Show Low police officers used excessive force while falsely arresting Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to suffer physical injury. (Doc. 1). Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). (Doc. 14; Doc. 24). The Court granted Defendants' motion, finding Plaintiff's complaint contained only conclusory allegations and failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 27 at 6). However, the Court permitted Plaintiff to amend his complaint. (Doc. 27 at 9). Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") (Doc. 28).[2] Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 29; Doc. 30).

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint clarifies that Plaintiff seeks damages based upon alleged violations of his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights, apparently related to Plaintiff's criminal conviction on unspecified charges. (Doc. 28 at 1, 5, 9). Plaintiff alleges he was the subject of an unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. ( Id. at 1). Plaintiff also alleges he was denied assistance of counsel and "a full discovery of unedited video evidence" pertaining to his original arrest and criminal prosecution in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. ( Id. )

Plaintiff makes specific allegations toward each of the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Williams (1) grabbed Plaintiff while Plaintiff was sitting "in his seat" and compliant with Williams' instructions, (2) ordered Defendant Fechtelkotter to shoot Plaintiff with a Taser, and (3) interfered with a video recording (apparently of Plaintiff's arrest). ( Id. )

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Fechtelkotter shot Plaintiff with a Taser while Plaintiff was standing and while other officers were holding Plaintiff's arms behind his back. ( Id. at 3). Plaintiff also alleges Fechtelkotter later made false statements concerning the events of Plaintiff's arrest. ( Id. at 3-4).

Plaintiff alleges Defendants Roby and Spears kneed Plaintiff in the back causing physical injury. ( Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges Roby and Spears later made false statements in Defendant Douglass' police report concerning these events. ( Id. )

Plaintiff alleges Defendant McNeil violated Plaintiff's right to a fair trial and obstructed justice by not providing Plaintiff with an unedited copy of the "car cam" evidence. ( Id. )

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Douglass, who investigated the circumstances of Plaintiff's arrest, violated Plaintiff's right to a fair trial and obstructed justice when he "purposefully overlook [sic] the officers [sic] conflicting, contradictory sworn statements" to "clear his fellow officers of criminal activity." ( Id. at 4-5).

Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Nichols obstructed justice by knowingly using "criminally altered evidence" to convict Plaintiff of a crime. ( Id. at 5).

Plaintiff purports to provide a legal basis for his allegations by including in his Amended Complaint a number of quotations and citations to case law concerning a governmental entity's liability under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. ( Id. at 6-7).

II. Legal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.