United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Garbis United States District Judge.
Court has before it Defendants, Hanna's, Jeanty's and
Harty's Motion to Dismiss, Or In the Alternative For
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 8], and the materials submitted
relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is
Drew Hinton (“Hinton” or “Plaintiff”)
brings a suit against Defendants P.O. Fred Hannah
(“Hannah”), SGT. Francisco Jeanty
(“Jeanty”), SGT Marlon Harty
(“Harty”), and ten John Doe
Defendants. The Complaint asserts Section 1983 claims
in Seven Counts: municipal liability, supervisory violations,
unlawful arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene,
malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Defendants move
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
18, 2014, Plaintiff's fiancé drove her to the
hospital in a rush because she was five months pregnant, was
bleeding from her vagina, and believed she was suffering a
miscarriage. Police stopped their vehicle and arrested her
fiancé on an alleged outstanding warrant for failure
to make child support payments. They forced Plaintiff to exit
the vehicle and also arrested her for hindering an
investigation, despite her allegation that she was not
threatening in any way.
Plaintiff arrived at Baltimore Central Booking, the police
officers were ordered to take her to the hospital. She
discovers at the hospital that she experienced a miscarriage.
all charges against Plaintiff relating to the May 2014
incident were dropped. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on
November 22, 2017.
motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a
complaint. A complaint need only contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citations omitted). When evaluating a
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's well- pleaded
allegations are accepted as true and the complaint is viewed
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. However,
conclusory statements or a “formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action” will not suffice.
Id. A complaint must allege sufficient facts to
“cross ‘the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief.'”
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir.
2009)(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
into whether a complaint states a plausible claim is “a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. Thus, if the well-pleaded facts contained within
a complaint “do not permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged
- but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).
a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6) cannot reach
the merits of an affirmative defense. Goodman v. Praxair,
Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007). However,
affirmative defenses are appropriate to consider at the Rule
12(b)(6) stage “when the face of the complaint
clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious
affirmative defense.” Occupy Columbia v.
Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 116 (4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis
argue that all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the
three-year statute of limitations.
1983 contains no statute of limitations and, consequently, it
has been held that the most analogous state statute of
limitations would apply. In Maryland that has been held to be
three years.” Duggan v. Town of Ocean City,
516 F.Supp. 1081, 1083 (D. Md. 1981). See also Md.
Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101, Davidson
v. Koerber, 454 F.Supp. 1256, 1261 (D. Md. 1978);
Kashaka v. ...