Hobbs v. Willis

Hobbs · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin · February 14, 2025 · No. 22-cv-467-pp

Summary

This federal district court order grants the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court finds that the plaintiff's civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 are deficient because he failed to identify specific defendants responsible for constitutional violations or allege membership in a protected class. Additionally, the court dismisses the plaintiff's state law claims due to his failure to comply with Wisconsin's statutory notice-of-claim requirement. The court grants the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Decision date
February 14, 2025
Docket number
22-cv-467-pp
Procedural posture
Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion, dismissed the state-law claims with prejudice, dismissed the federal claims with leave to amend, and permitted the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by March 21, 2025.
Standard of review
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 8(a), accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and ordinarily considers only the allegations in the complaint. A complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
Precedential value
unpublished district-court order; nonprecedential
Parties
Lawrence Houston Hobbs v. Nicholas Willis, Christopher Smith, Tim Zarzecki, Village of Mount Pleasant, Mount Pleasant Police Department, John Doe defendants
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisssection 1983civil rightscivil procedurenegligence

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rightsconstitutional lawtortsmunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  2. Whether the amended complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) or § 1985(3).
  3. Whether the plaintiff's Monell municipal-liability claims could proceed without a sufficiently pleaded underlying constitutional violation.
  4. Whether the plaintiff's Wisconsin state-law claims were barred by failure to provide the notice required by Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1d).
  5. Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend his federal claims while being denied leave to replead the state-law claims.

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim because it did not identify the constitutional or statutory rights allegedly violated, the individuals personally responsible, when the violations occurred, or how they occurred.
  2. The amended complaint failed to state a § 1985(3) claim because it did not allege that the plaintiff belonged to a protected class or identify race-based or other class-based discriminatory animus.
  3. The plaintiff's Monell claims failed because the complaint did not adequately plead an underlying constitutional violation by a municipal employee.
  4. The state-law claims were dismissed because the plaintiff undisputedly failed to provide written notice of the circumstances of his claim and an itemized statement of relief within the period required by Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1d).
  5. The plaintiff could amend his federal §§ 1983 and 1985 claims, but amendment of the state-law claims was denied as futile because the statutory notice defect could not be cured by repleading.

Key quotations

To state a claim under §1983, the plaintiff needed to identify the rights of which he claims he was deprived, who deprived him of those right, when they did it and how they did it. (Section IV.A)
The plaintiff needed to provide “notice of the circumstances of the claim” and “an itemized statement of the relief sought.” (Section IV.E)
The second amended complaint must be complete in itself; it may not refer the reader back to the original or the amended complaint. (Section V)

Factual background

The plaintiff alleged that law-enforcement officers entered his federal duty station or residence on November 1, 2018, arrested and detained him after he directed them not to re-enter, and retaliated against him for exercising free speech. He further alleged that the defendants conspired to prosecute him, withhold exculpatory information, interfere with his federal employment, and cause other legal and employment consequences. The amended complaint asserted federal civil-rights and conspiracy claims, municipal-liability claims, and several Wisconsin tort claims, but generally attributed conduct to the defendants collectively and did not identify the specific rights violated, responsible individuals, timing, or manner of each alleged violation.

Procedural history

The plaintiff filed an original civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 15, 2022, and an amended complaint in February 2023 adding conspiracy, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court rejected the plaintiff's procedural objections, dismissed the federal §§ 1983 and 1985 claims for insufficient allegations, dismissed the state-law claims for failure to comply with Wisconsin's notice-of-claim statute, and allowed amendment of the federal claims only.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…