Opinion ID: 2974967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: city defendants’ dismissal

Text: Loggins also claims the district court committed error in dismissing his claims against Defendants-Appellees the City of Columbus, the City of Columbus Mayor and the Columbus City Council Members (collectively the “City Defendants”). Loggins alleges the City Defendants conspired with Brooks to deprive him of his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the City Defendants as a misjoined party pursuant to FED . R. CIV . P. 21. Having examined this claim we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing the City Defendants under FED . R. CIV . P. 21. This Court reviews a district court’s decision to dismiss a misjoined party under FED . R. CIV . P. 21 for abuse of discretion. Letherer v. Alger Group, L.L.C., -17- No. 05-4135 James Loggins v. Franklin County Ohio, et al 328 F.3d 262, 266 (6th Cir. 2003). We must affirm the dismissal “unless the court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.” Id. at 266-67 (quoting Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 1998)). Loggins filed his original complaint in August 2001 in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio. The suit was removed to federal court. Next, Loggins filed an amended complaint on December 23, 2002. Neither of the first two complaints named any of the City Defendants as defendants. On February 25, 2003, Loggins filed a motion with the district court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. Loggins attached his proposed second amended complaint to his motion requesting leave. The attached document did not include any mention of adding the City Defendants. In April 2003 the district court denied the motion to amend on unrelated grounds, reasoning that because Loggins had named Franklin County, Ohio, as a party, he did not need to name the Commissioners or the Sheriff. However, in February 2004 the district court granted the motion to amend on the condition that Loggins would only name proper parties and specifically listed Brooks as an improper party who was not to be named in the new complaint. Loggins filed his second amended complaint on February 23, 2004, and for the first time named the City Defendants as defendants. This was two and a half years after the original complaint was filed. Loggins named the City Defendants in the second amended complaint even though he did not include the City Defendants in the attachment to his motion seeking leave to file the new complaint. The district court then dismissed the City Defendants pursuant to FED . R. CIV . P. 21 because it found Loggins was attempting to improperly resurrect claims against Brooks after they had already been decided. The district court made it clear in the order dismissing Brooks from the -18- No. 05-4135 James Loggins v. Franklin County Ohio, et al case that any claims against the City Defendants were indirectly dismissed from the case when the claims against Brooks were resolved. Loggins then argued to the district court that he worried if he did not name Brooks in the second amended complaint he would effectively waive his right to appeal the earlier dismissal. To ensure the claims against Brooks would be preserved on appeal, on April 22, 2004, the district court granted leave to file the third amended complaint and stated it would wipe the slate clean with regard to the second amended complaint. However, Loggins failed to name the City Defendants in the third amended complaint. The district court then dismissed all claims against Brooks finding she was properly dismissed previously. Ultimately, Loggins only named the City Defendants in the second amended complaint, the third of four complaints filed in this case. Loggins argues when the district court wiped the slate clean, he should have been able to reassert his claim against Brooks and the City Defendants. Loggins, however, failed to rename the City Defendants in the third amended complaint despite renaming Brooks. Therefore, if the district court did mean to truly wipe the slate clean, Loggins abandoned his claims against the City Defendants by not naming them. The district court allowed Loggins to rename Brooks in the third amended complaint for the simple point of preserving the right to appeal with the understanding she would be dismissed from the case immediately. The district court noted Loggins did not assert any claims against the City Defendants other than through the actions of Brooks who had already been dismissed from the case. The district court interpreted Loggins’ naming the City Defendants in the second amended complaint as an attempt to resurrect the issue as to Brooks which had already been decided. It is telling that Loggins only named the City Defendants in the one complaint where the -19- No. 05-4135 James Loggins v. Franklin County Ohio, et al district court explicitly instructed him he could not name Brooks. The dismissal of Brooks resolved the claims against the City Defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss as there is no evidence the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.