Opinion ID: 2777843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs’ First Four Complaints

Text: While the municipal court criminal proceedings were ongoing, Mathis, pro se, and Donley, represented by counsel, filed a civil Complaint and an Amended 3 Case: 14-12038 Date Filed: 02/09/2015 Page: 4 of 20 Complaint in state court. After the Defendants removed the action to federal district court, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 1, 2012. All three complaints alleged, inter alia, malicious prosecution claims under both § 1983 and state law against the Defendant City and various officials, including Defendant Officer Turner. The district court stayed the Plaintiffs’ federal action pending resolution of the municipal court proceedings. After the municipal charges were dismissed, the district court reopened the § 1983 case on January 9, 2013. Pursuant to the district court’s order, the Plaintiffs, both now represented by counsel Robert Kenner, Jr., filed a Third Amended Complaint, which is the dispositive complaint for purposes of this appeal. The Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint did not allege a state law claim of malicious prosecution. Instead, the Third Amended Complaint alleged: (1) a § 1983 claim for denial of the right to self-representation; (2) a § 1983 claim of municipal liability for failure to implement proper procedures as to a criminal defendant’s right to self-representation; (3) a § 1983 claim of malicious prosecution; (4) a § 1983 claim of municipal liability for failure to train the Morrow Police Department as to illegal prosecutions; and (5) a claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to § 1988.