Man files federal lawsuit against officers, deputies

Hot Springs County resident Douglas Edwards, 53, filed a civil federal lawsuit in October against the Thermopolis Police Department (TPD), Hot Springs County Sheriff’’s Office (HSCSO), unnamed Detention Center Officers 1-6, Ken Smith, Casey Freund, Jessica Araiza and Pat Cornwell. Edwards does not have a lawyer and representing himself in the case. He filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) declaring he was unable to pay for the costs of the proceedings.

In Edwards Civil Rights Complaint, he asserts a total of seven claims including claim 1 - violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights, claim 2 - false imprisonment, claim 3 - battery/assault, claim 4 - trespass, claim 5/6 - trespass to chattles/tortious invasion of privacy and claim 7 - regarding TPD and HSCSO, saying these departments failed him by inadequately training and supervising their officer.

In a document filed on November 19 in the case, an Order Partially Dismissing, Granting Leave to Amend and Granting Motion to Proceed, the court dismissed claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The document states “Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the first step in the litigation process generally begins with the Court screening the Complaint.” The document cites references 28 U.S.C. 1915 (See Buchheit v. Green), noting that prompt screening, even for cases involving non-prisoners, “may be a good thing and conserve the resources of defendants forced to respond to baseless lawsuits.” The Court then grants the Plaintiff’s IFP motion. However, the Court then states that claims 2-7 must be dismissed pursuant to the screening, but Plaintiff is granted thirty days within which to amend his Complaint by filing a first amended complaint.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that on October 13, 2021, Defendant Ken Smith, a Deputy the HSCSO was dispatched to a home owned by Edwards’ mother to conduct a civil standby. Plaintiff claims that after arriving at the home, Smith informed Edwards that he was trespassing on the property and that he needed to leave immediately. Edwards asserted that he had permission to be at the home and asked Smith to contact the owner, his mother, to verify that he was authorized to be there. Edwards alleges Smith refused to do so, and an altercation ensued. Edwards and Smith engaged in a struggle inside the home, where Edwards ultimately ended up sitting in a chair at the kitchen table and states later he went to a bedroom to pack his belongings to leave. Edwards claims the other officers and deputies then arrived at the home and proceeded to tackle him and tase him. The Plaintiff was then arrested and transported to the hospital and ultimately to jail.

Plaintiff’s first claim alleges violation of his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by Defendants entering his home and arresting him without a warrant and without the legal authority to do so. The document states “Construing Plaintiff’s allegations as true and making all reasonable inferences in his favor, as the Court must do at this preliminary stage, the Court finds a plausible claim for violation of the Fourth Amendment has been stated. In short, Plaintiff has offered, at this point in the litigation process, sufficient factual support for the claims that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by Defendants entering a home without consent and arresting him without a warrant. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims against the named Defendants, in their individual capacities, survives.”

When explaining the ruling of the Court regarding the dismal of claims, the Court notes claims come in two general varieties— official capacity and individual/personal capacity claims. “Personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes under color of state law. Official-capacity suits, in contrast, ‘generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’ state law. Here, Plaintiff specially states he is suing all named Defendants in both their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants are simply claims against the government entity. Plaintiff does not identify any policy or custom enforced by the governmental entities that caused his harm. Plaintiff only alleges the individual conduct by Defendants violated his rights.

However, Plaintiff’s 7th claim alleges failure to adequately train its officers and deputies against the Thermopolis Police Department and the Hot Springs County Sheriff’s Office. “To prevail under the failure-to-train approach, a plaintiff must show that the municipality made a ‘deliberate or conscious choice’ to not train its employees, and that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to its inhabitants’ constitutional rights.” Here, Plaintiff merely states that “it’s proper to speculate that their training is inadequate as well as not properly being supervised.” The Court states that the Plaintiff fails to offer any factual support that would support a plausible inference that either entity failed to train its employees. Consequently, Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against the named Defendants and his claims against the Thermopolis Police Department and Hot Springs County Sheriff’s Office must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Next, Plaintiff’s claims 2, 3, and 4 alleges false imprisonment, assault and battery, and trespass. The Court state that the statutes identified by Plaintiff are criminal in nature. The court issued documents cites and references Armajo v. Norris, “A criminal statute does not automatically give rise to a civil cause of action, unless the statute expressly or by clear implication so provides.” Nothing in the Wyoming Criminal Statues cited by Plaintiff explicitly or implicitly suggests a violation of the statute constitutes an actionable private cause of action. These statutes are intended to impose criminal liability.

Plaintiff’s claims 5 and 6 allege a violation of trespass to chattels and tortious invasion of privacy. The Court states, “In order to state a plausible claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a right secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law. Plaintiff relies on § 1983 as the basis for his claims, and even titles his Complaint “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Section 1983 does not afford Plaintiff the right to bring state law claims in federal court and also precludes claims alleging violations of state criminal statutes. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and survives initial screening. However, claims 2-7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit has “stated that ‘dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” The Court granted Plaintiff’s leave to amend.

Plaintiff has thirty days from the filing of the November Order to file a “proper amended complaint in which he (1) raises only properly joined claims and defendants; (2) alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for a federal constitutional violation and show a cause of action in federal court; and (3) alleges sufficient facts to show personal participation by each named defendant.” If Plaintiff does not “timely file an amended complaint, or files another pleading that fails to state a claim, the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice and without further notice.” If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen it and only after that will it order service on Defendants.