Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00986/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00986-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SADAKA T. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL ERIC SMITHERMAN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:14cv986-WKW-TFM

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Now pending before the court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12(b)(6) filed by Officer Eric Smitherman. Doc. 12. During a status and scheduling 

conference conducted on January 13, 2015, counsel for Officer Smitherman requested 

that the court require Plaintiff Sadaka T. Davis to provide a more definite statement and 

argued that the Complaint does not specify the date or location where Plaintiff was 

arrested. In the Complaint and Amendments thereto, Plaintiff alleges that Officer 

Smitherman unlawfully arrested him without a warrant based on harassment charges filed 

against him by William Roebuck and without reading his Miranda rights on September 

18, 2014 in front of 405 Second Street South in Clanton, Alabama, in violation of his 

constitutional rights. Upon consideration of the Motion and Plaintiff’s Response, the 

court concludes that the Motion to Dismiss is due to DENIED at this time.

A Rule 12(b)(6) Motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Although it 

must accept well-pled facts as true, the court is not required to accept a plaintiff's legal 

Case 2:14-cv-00986-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 4
2

conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (A[T]he 

tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is 

inapplicable to legal conclusions@). In evaluating the sufficiency of a plaintiff's 

pleadings, the court must indulge reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, Abut we are 

not required to draw plaintiff's inference.@ Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., 

Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 2005). Similarly, Aunwarranted deductions of fact@

in a complaint are not admitted as true for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of 

plaintiff's allegations. Id.; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680, 129 S. Ct. at 1951 (stating 

conclusory allegations are Anot entitled to be assumed true.”

A complaint may be dismissed if the facts as pled do not state a claim for relief 

that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (explaining 

Aonly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss@); 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-62, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 

929 (2007) (retiring the prior Aunless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove 

no set of facts@ standard). In Twombly, the Supreme Court emphasized that a complaint 

Arequires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of 

a cause of action will not do.@ Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations in a 

complaint need not be detailed but Amust be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even 

if doubtful in fact).@ Id. at 555 (internal citations and emphasis omitted).

In Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated that although FED. R. CIV. P. 8 does not 

require detailed factual allegations; it does demand Amore than an unadorned, 

Case 2:14-cv-00986-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 4
3

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 

1949. A complaint must state a plausible claim for relief, and A[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.@ Id. The 

mere possibility the defendant acted unlawfully is insufficient to survive a motion to 

dismiss. Id. The well-pled allegations must nudge the claim Aacross the line from 

conceivable to plausible.@ Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

The defendant argues that the case against him is due to be dismissed because he 

took no part in the arrest of the plaintiff. Davis, however, specifically alleges that Officer 

Smitherman is the individual who arrested him for harassment on September 18, 2014 at 

405 Second Street South, Clanton, Alabama, and that the charges were subsequently 

dismissed. The court therefore concludes that, at this stage of the proceedings, the facts 

as pled state a claim for relief against Officer Smitherman that is plausible on its face. 

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge as follows:

(1) The Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Officer 

Smitherman be DENIED. Doc. 12.

Finally, it is

ORDERED that the defendant shall file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before March 6, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party 

Case 2:14-cv-00986-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 02/19/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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.

Done this 19th day of February, 2015.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00986-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 02/19/15 Page 4 of 4