Isela Lobley, on behalf of Jaylen Lobley, deceased v. Memphis Police Department

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Isela Lobley’s complaint with prejudice. The court granted the City of Memphis’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and denied both motions for leave to amend as futile or procedurally deficient. The court also declined to consider a defamation claim raised for the first time in objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Holdings

1. Leave to file the second amended complaint was properly denied because Lobley failed to comply with Local Rule 15.1(a) and failed to file the proposed pleading despite the court's order.
2. The proposed amendments were futile because they consisted of conclusory allegations, failed to identify what each officer did or how the conduct violated the Constitution or law, and failed to plausibly allege a municipal policy or custom.
3. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim against the City because it did not plausibly allege that a City policy or custom caused the deprivation of Jaylen's constitutional rights.
4. Lobley's attempted defamation claim was waived and procedurally barred because it was not included in the operative complaint and was raised for the first time in objections to the report and recommendation.
5. It did not. The alleged identity of the shooter did not cure the failure to allege what any officer did, how an officer violated Jaylen's rights, or what City policy caused the alleged violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly denied leave to file a second amended complaint when Lobley failed to file the proposed pleading despite a court order and Local Rule 15.1(a).
2. Whether the proposed amendments were futile because they failed to state specific individual-capacity claims and failed to plausibly allege a municipal policy or custom under Monell.
3. Whether Lobley's complaint plausibly stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Memphis.
4. Whether Lobley could assert a defamation claim for the first time in objections to the report and recommendation.
5. Whether the alleged fact that Taylor, rather than Jaylen, shot Officer McKinney cured the deficiencies in the § 1983 claims.

Disposition

dismissed