Scott v. Regalado

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERENCE C. KERN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Mark Facey, Jamison Hirsch, Vic Regalado, and Joshua Victory. (Doc. 33.) For reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

         I. Factual Background

         This case arises from three separate encounters between Plaintiff Shawn Scott (“Scott”) and deputies employed by the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, some of which also involve Scott's son or Plaintiff Melissa Hawthorne (“Hawthorne”).

         A. 10/23/14 Arrest of Scott by Hirsch (First Cause of Action)

         The factual details of the 10/23/14 arrest are summarized in the Court's Opinion and Order of September 5, 2017. (Doc. 28.) Because this Court has already found Plaintiff's First Cause of Action states a plausible claim for relief, it is not necessary to discuss that arrest herein.

         B. 04/06/15 Arrest of Scott by Hirsch and Streeter (Second Cause of Action)

         Approximately six months later, on April 6, 2015, Defendant Hirsch conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in which Scott was a passenger. During the course of this traffic stop, Defendant Scott Streeter arrived on the scene. Scott apparently asked Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Streeter why they arrested her son, and was subsequently arrested for obstruction of justice. The obstruction charges have since been dismissed “as being without probable cause and without any legal basis whatsoever.” (Doc. 29, pg. 4.) Scott also alleges that Defendant Hirsch and Defendant Streeter colluded to accuse Scott of obstruction, and caused criminal charges to be filed against Scott. Finally, Scott alleges that the arrest and subsequent charges were intentional and malicious, demonstrated racial animus, and were intended to rebuke Scott for asking why Defendants arrested her son.

         C. 12/31/15 Arrests of Scott and Hawthorne by Victory and Facey (Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action)

         On or about December 31, 2015, Scott's son, who lives with Scott, was driving the family automobile when he was followed home by Defendant Victory. Defendant Victory was joined at Scott's home by Defendant Facey and the two entered Scott's home without consent, without probable cause, and without a warrant, and arrested both Scott and Hawthorne. Scott was charged with obstruction and resisting arrest, and Hawthorne was charged with obstruction. Both charges were dismissed on August 17, 2016. Plaintiffs also allege that there was no probable cause or other legal basis to arrest them, that Defendants Victory and Facey entering Scott's home violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that their arrests were intentional, malicious, and demonstrate racial animus. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Victory and Facey wrongfully caused criminal charges to be filed against them.

         II. Procedural Background

         Plaintiffs filed their Petition in Tulsa County District Court on January 12, 2017. Defendants removed the case to this Court on February 10, 2017. (Doc. 2.) Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on March 10, 2017 (Doc. 13), which the Court granted with leave to amend as to Claims 2-7 on September 5, 2017. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 (Doc. 29).

         Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2017. (Doc. 33.) In it, Defendants move for a dismissal of Claims 2-7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Defendants Hirsch, Victory, and Facey, who are sued individually, have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. See Robbins v. Okla., 519 F.3d 1242, 1248 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that qualified immunity exists to protect public officials from discovery that can be disruptive of effective government).

         III. Rule ...