United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Honorable Edward J. Lodge, U.S. District Judge.
the Court in the above entitled matter is the Defendants'
Motion for Partial Dismissal. (Dkt. 11.) The parties have
filed responsive briefing and the Motion is ripe for the
Court's consideration. Having fully reviewed the record
herein, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments
are adequately presented in the briefs and record.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Motion shall be decided on the record before this Court
without oral argument.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
underlying facts giving rise to this § 1983 action
occurred on August 21, 2015 at approximately 4:30 p.m. when
two Canyon County Deputy Sheriffs, Cody Frailey and
Christopher Odenberg, arrived at the Plaintiff's, Dale
Fairbanks, home in Nampa, Idaho. The Deputies were
investigating a report of domestic violence made by Mr.
Fairbanks' then-girlfriend that had allegedly occurred
several weeks prior. (Dkt. 1.)
the Deputies arrived at the residence, Mr. Fairbanks met them
in his yard. The Deputies informed Mr. Fairbanks of the
purpose for their visit and the nature of the domestic
violence report. Mr. Fairbanks states he was polite,
cooperative, and responsive to the Deputies inquiries. (Dkt.
1.) After a period of time, the Deputies stated that
detectives at the police station wanted Mr. Fairbanks to come
in for further questioning. Mr. Fairbanks then stated
“this isn't happening” and returned to the
inside of his residence. The parties offer differing accounts
of what happened next.
general, Mr. Fairbanks re-entered his home from the back
door, then exited his home from the garage door,
moved/repositioned one of his vehicles, and then encountered
the Deputies again in his front yard. During that encounter,
both Deputies deployed their tasers into Mr. Fairbanks who
pulled the taser wires out of his body. The officers also
directed Mr. Fairbanks to “get on the ground” to
which Mr. Fairbanks responded he was unable to because of his
prior knee surgery. When Deputy Frailey grabbed Mr.
Fairbank's left wrist and placed a handcuff on it, Mr.
Fairbanks pulled his left arm forward and the two struggled.
Deputy Odenberg allegedly struck Mr. Fairbanks with his baton
during this time. Ultimately, Mr. Fairbanks was handcuffed
and placed in a patrol car.
December 8, 2015, Mr. Fairbanks plead guilty in state court
to two misdemeanor counts of resisting and obstructing
officers and was sentenced to 365 days incarceration with 361
days suspended, ordered to pay a fine and costs, $1, 338.90
in restitution, and serve two years of unsupervised
probation. On November 6, 2017, the state court granted Mr.
Fairbanks' Motion for Early Termination of Unsupervised
Probation and dismissed the matter pursuant to a grant of the
withheld judgment. (Dkt. 24, Att. A.)
August 16, 2017, Mr. Fairbanks, filed his Complaint in this
matter. The first five causes of action raise claims under
§ 1983 against Deputies Frailey and Odenberg in their
individual and official capacities for: 1) Wrongful Seizure
without probable cause, 2) False Arrest, 3) Excessive Force
as to the use of Tasers and Batons, 4) Excessive Force as to
Handcuffing, and 5) Unlawful Search of Residence in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. (Dkt. 1.) The sixth and seventh
causes of action allege claims against Canyon County and the
named Canyon County Commissioners in their individual and
official capacities for: 1) Unconstitutional County Policy or
Custom and 2) Negligent Failure to Supervise or Train. (Dkt.
filed this Motion for Partial Dismissal seeking to dismiss
the first and second causes of action against the Deputies
and dismissal of the sixth and seventh causes of action
against the County Commissioners in both their individual and
official capacities. (Dkt. 11.) For the reasons stated below,
the Court grants the Motion.
motion to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a party's
claim for relief. When considering such a motion, the
Court's inquiry is whether the allegations in a pleading
are sufficient under applicable pleading standards. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) sets forth minimum pleading
rules, requiring only a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
general, a motion to dismiss will only be granted if the
complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not
akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citations omitted). Although “we must take
all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we
are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Therefore, “conclusory ...