Temetrius Richardson v. R. David, Badge #3111, in his individual capacity, as City of Atlanta Police Officer, and City of Atlanta Police Department

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted motions to dismiss Temetrius Richardson’s claims against Atlanta police officer R. David and the City of Atlanta Police Department. The court held that Richardson failed to plausibly state claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), including claims involving the right to travel, unreasonable seizure, due process, property rights, excessive bail or fines, and alleged breach of trust. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing Richardson 30 days to amend.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not plausibly allege a violation of the constitutional right to travel because there is no fundamental right to drive without a state-mandated driver's license or license plate, and denial of a single mode of transportation does not violate the fundamental right to interstate travel.
2. The complaint did not plausibly state a Fourth Amendment claim because Officer David had probable cause to arrest Richardson for driving without a driver's license and license plate, both of which Georgia law requires, and those violations are misdemeanors.
3. The complaint did not plausibly state a Fifth Amendment due-process claim because it appeared to rely on the same allegations as the failed Fourth Amendment warrantless-arrest claim, and its alleged property claim was nonsensical and conclusory.
4. Richardson failed to state an excessive-bail claim because he did not allege that either defendant directly participated in the bail process, requested that bail be imposed, or prevented the state court judge from exercising discretion.
5. The complaint did not plausibly state an excessive-fines claim because Richardson did not plausibly allege that the vehicle-impound fee was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense or inconsistent with Georgia law.
6. Richardson failed to state a claim under § 1985(3) because he did not allege racial or other class-based invidiously discriminatory animus.
7. After dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law unjust-enrichment claim and dismissed it without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Richardson plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged violation of his constitutional right to travel.
2. Whether Richardson plausibly stated a Fourth Amendment claim arising from his arrest for driving without a driver's license and license plate.
3. Whether Richardson plausibly stated Fifth Amendment due-process or property claims and an Eighth Amendment excessive-bail or excessive-fines claim.
4. Whether Richardson plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) without alleging racial or other class-based discriminatory animus.
5. Whether the district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law unjust-enrichment claim after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed