Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00700/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00700-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JIMMY ZAEE and JAY ZAEE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ABBEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV. ACT. NO. 1:14cv700-WKW-TFM

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Florida, Plaintiffs Jimmy Zaee and Jay Zaee filed an Amended Complaint pro se against 

the City of Abbeville Police Department, Henry County Sheriff’s Office, and Officer

Drew Ruble, claiming that law enforcement officers violated their Fourth Amendment 

rights during a traffic stop and violated the Alabama Open Records Act. Doc. No. 5. 

Plaintiffs seek an order for the Abbeville Police Department and Henry County Sheriff to 

produce audio-video recordings from the three patrol cars on the scene of the December 

2014 stop. Id. Plaintiffs assert that, “[i]f these law enforcement officers have nothing to 

hide, then they should have no difficulty in providing . . . the recordings as requested 

under the Alabama State [Statute] and under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution” and 

that “[o]nly after that we might be able to bring applicable charges including the damages 

or injuries, punitive or monetary, before this Honorable Court.” Doc. No. 5-1, p. 10. 

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 7
On July 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Florida transferred the case to this court. Doc. No. 8. On August 15, 2014, Plaintiffs 

filed a “Demand for Discovery” in which they request the court to order the City of 

Abbeville Police Department and Henry County Sheriff’s Office to provide the names 

and addresses of the law enforcement officers involved in the traffic stop, the name of the 

“chain smoking passenger,” and the audio-video recordings in the three patrol cars, 

including recordings of the hour before and hour after the event. Doc. No. 16. The court 

construed the demand as a “Motion for Order.” Id. During a status conference before the 

undersigned on October 2, 2014, Plaintiffs asserted that they would not file a lawsuit 

against the defendants if they were provided the audio-video recordings and discovered 

no violations of the law. Doc. No. 27. 

Defendants subsequently filed Motions to Dismiss, in which they argue the claims 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are due to be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12(b)(6). Doc. Nos. 29, 31 & 32. On October 15, 2014, the City of Abbeville Police 

Department and Officer Ruble provided the names and addresses of the law enforcement 

officers and the “chain-smoking” reserve police officer to Plaintiffs. Doc. No. 33. They 

also produced the recording of the traffic stop from Officer Ruble’s vehicle and assert 

that there are no recordings of the hours before or after the stop. Id. In addition, they 

assert that Officer Joshua Moore’s patrol car was not equipped with a car camera and 

therefore there are no recordings from his vehicle. Id. 

On November 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed Responses to the Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss, in which they assert that their case is only “information-seeking and 

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 7
investigative in nature” and that the defendants have incorrectly assumed that they have 

brought claims challenging the traffic stop and search under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. Nos. 

35, 36 & 37. Plaintiffs maintain that they are pursuing this lawsuit under the Alabama 

Open Records Act. Doc. No. 35, p. 2; Doc. No. 36, pp. 2-3; Doc. No. 37, p. 4. Upon 

review of the Complaint, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

II. DISCUSSION

In their Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs appear to assert claims against the 

defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 5. Nonetheless, during a status 

conference and in their Responses, the plaintiffs represent that they are not presently 

pursuing any federal constitutional claims against the defendants at this time. Doc. Nos. 

27, 35, 36 & 37. This court is required to liberally construe the plaintiffs’ pleadings. See 

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980). To the extent the Amended Complaint may be 

construed as asserting federal constitutional claims challenging the traffic stop and 

subsequent search of the plaintiffs’ vehicle, the claims against the City of Abbeville

Police Department and the Henry County Sheriff’s Office are due to be dismissed 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 

The City of Abbeville Police Department and the Henry County Sheriff’s Office 

are not legal entities subject to suit or liability under § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 

F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department is not a 

legal entity subject to suit under § 1983, as department lacked capacity to be sued under 

Alabama law). Cf. Faulkner v. Monroe County Sheriff’s Department, 523 Fed. Appx. 

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 7
696 (11th Cir. 2013) (Under Florida law, a sheriff’s office is not a legal entity with the 

capacity to be sued). Therefore, to the extent the plaintiff’s claims against the City of 

Abbeville Police Department and the Henry County Sheriff’s Office may be construed as 

claims brought under § 1983, the claims against these defendants are due to be dismissed 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). 

Officer Ruble also moves to dismiss the claims against him pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Amended Complaint does not seek any 

relief against him. In response, the plaintiffs assert that they seek relief from Officer 

Ruble, the City of Abbeville Police Department and the Henry County Sheriff’s Office 

under the Alabama Open Records Act, 36-12-40 and 41-13-1, Ala. Code 1975. Federal 

courts are of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 

375, 377 (1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). Thus, 

federal courts only have the power to hear cases as authorized by the Constitution or the 

laws of the United States, see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, and are required to inquire into 

their jurisdiction at the earliest possible point in the proceeding. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. 

Tobacco Co., 169 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) requires that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Every federal court

operates under an independent obligation to ensure it is presented with the kind of 

concrete controversy upon which its constitutional grant of authority is based. FW/PBS, 

Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). This obligation on the court to examine its 

own jurisdiction continues at each stage of the proceedings, even if no party raises the 

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 4 of 7
jurisdictional issues and both parties are prepared to concede it. Id. “It is axiomatic that 

a district court may inquire into the basis of its subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of 

the proceedings.” See 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & 

Procedure 3522 (1975). 

The plaintiffs maintain that their assertion that the defendants have violated the 

Alabama Open Records Act is the only claim before this court. A claim arising under the 

Alabama Open Records Act is an issue of state law. Thus, the court does not have 

federal jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Consequently, this case is 

due to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12(h)(3).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. To the extent the Amended Complaint may be construed as asserting 

federal constitutional claims challenging the traffic stop and subsequent search of the 

plaintiffs and/or their vehicle, the Motions to Dismiss filed by the City of Abbeville

Police Department and the Henry County Sheriff’s Office are due to be GRANTED and 

the § 1983 claims against these defendants be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Doc. Nos. 29 & 31. 

2. To the extent the plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants arising 

under the Alabama Open Records Act, the claims are due to be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 5 of 7
3. To the extent Officer Ruble moves to dismiss the claims against him, the 

Motion to Dismiss is due to be GRANTED and the claims against this defendant are due 

to be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. No. 32.

4. This case be dismissed.

Finally, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file any objections to the said Recommendation 

on or before December 24, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically identify the 

findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, 

therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 

(5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 6 of 7
Done this 9th day of December, 2014.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00700-WKW-TFM Document 39 Filed 12/09/14 Page 7 of 7