Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_19-cv-01046/USCOURTS-alnd-2_19-cv-01046-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

K.S., a Minor, by and through his legal 

guardian PHYLLS GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER MARKECHA COLEMAN,

individually and in her official 

capacity, and OFFICER GREGORY 

EDGE, individually and in his official 

capacity,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:19-cv-1046-GMB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction 

of a United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the court is the Partial Motion 

to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants. Doc. 37. Plaintiff K.S., 

a minor by and through his legal guardian Phylls Graham, does not oppose the 

motion. Doc. 40. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated below, the motion to 

dismiss (Doc. 37) is due to be granted.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this lawsuit 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or that 

venue is proper in the Northern District of Alabama. The court finds adequate 

allegations to support both.

FILED

 2020 Mar-13 PM 03:32

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:19-cv-01046-GMB Document 43 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 4
2

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff asserts claims of excessive force, failure to intervene, assault and 

battery, and outrage against Defendants. Doc. 34. According to the Amended 

Complaint, on June 21, 2017 around 5:00 p.m., Defendants—identified as Midfield 

Police Department Officers Markecha Coleman and Gregory Edge—responded to a 

call about two teenagers occupying a vacant dwelling in Midfield, Alabama. Doc. 

34 at 3. The dwelling belonged to the mother of one of the teenagers. Doc. 34 at 3. 

When the officers entered the dwelling, K.S. and the other teenager were leaving out 

of the back door. Doc. 34 at 3. K.S. realized that he had left his backpack in the 

house and returned inside. Doc. 34 at 3. At this point, without any warning, the 

officers shot K.S. in his stomach. Doc. 34 at 3. Plaintiff’s claims arise from this 

shooting. The claims are asserted against Defendants in both their individual and 

official capacities.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must “take the factual allegations in the 

complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” 

Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). To survive a motion 

to dismiss, a complaint must include “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). 

Case 2:19-cv-01046-GMB Document 43 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 4
3

IV. DISCUSSION

Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to assert claims of wrongdoing against a state 

actor in either her official capacity or individual capacity. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 

U.S. 21, 25 (1991). “Personal-capacity suits . . . seek to impose individual liability 

upon a government officer for actions taken under color of state law.” Id. at 25. 

Official capacity suits “generally represent only another way of pleading an action 

against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of 

City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). When a police officer is sued in 

his or her official capacity, that lawsuit is treated as a suit against the entity. See 

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S 159, 166 (1985). This is because “suits against a 

municipal officer sued in his official capacity and direct suits against municipalities 

are functionally equivalent.” Busby v. City of Orlando, 93 F.2d 764, 776 (11th Cir. 

1991). 

Here, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for the purpose of dismissing the 

City of Midfield as a defendant. Docs. 24 & 34. But Plaintiff nevertheless stated 

official capacity claims against two City of Midfield officers. Because a suit against

Officer Coleman and Officer Edge in their official capacities is the functional 

equivalent of a suit against the City of Midfield, Defendant requests that the official 

capacity claims be dismissed. Doc. 37. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. Doc. 

40. Accordingly, the Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 37) 

Case 2:19-cv-01046-GMB Document 43 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4

is due to be granted.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the unopposed Partial Motion 

to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. The claims against 

Defendants in their official capacity are DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED on March 13, 2020.

 _________________________________

 GRAY M. BORDEN

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01046-GMB Document 43 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 4