Opinion ID: 6329209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The claims and record before us

Text: The complaint does not clearly state whether the two officers are being sued in both their individual and official capacities for each of the claims. When a § 1983 plaintiff fails to affirmatively plead capacity in the complaint, we then look to the course of proceedings to determine whether the pleadings “clearly notify defendants of the potential for individual liability.” Moore v. City of Harriman, 272 F.3d 769, 773 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc). The caption of the complaint and whether the plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages are relevant factors in making this assessment. See id. The caption of Briggs’s complaint lists both officers in their individual and official capacities, and Briggs seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. “Taken as a whole, the complaint likely provided sufficient notice to the officers that they were being sued as individuals.” Id. We therefore construe the complaint as suing both of the officers in their individual and official capacities for the claims of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrageous conduct. In his briefing, Briggs discusses material outside of the pleadings. Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines pleadings as “(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an 4 No. 21-5581, Briggs v. Hogan, et al. answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a thirdparty complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Although our decision concerning a motion for a judgment on the pleadings “rests primarily upon the allegations of the complaint, ‘matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint[] also may be taken into account.’” Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001)). We can also consider exhibits appended to the motion for a judgment on the pleadings “so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained therein.” Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 695 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Briggs’s brief discusses body-camera footage of the incident at the center of this litigation. The brief also discusses testimony presented during the preliminary hearing. But the footage and the testimony were not submitted as a part of the pleadings or exhibits appended to Briggs’s response to the motion for a judgment on the pleadings. These materials are therefore not a part of the record and will not be considered in reviewing a dismissal under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a); Barany-Snyder, 539 F.3d at 332; Brent, 901 F.3d at 695.