United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
WILLIAM R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF GEORGIA et al., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on State of Georgia's ("Georgia") Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b)  ("Rule 54(b) Motion"). Also before the Court are the City of Kennesaw, Georgia's, the City of Hiram, Georgia's, and the City of Newnan, Georgia's (collectively, the "City Defendants") (together with Georgia, the "Defendants"): (1) first motion to dismiss  ("First Motion to Dismiss"); (2) second motion to dismiss  ("Second Motion to Dismiss"); (3) third motion to dismiss  ("Third Motion to Dismiss"); and (4) fourth motion to dismiss  ("Fourth Motion to Dismiss").
The Court also considers Plaintiff William R. Johnson's ("Plaintiff"): (1) Motion for Extension of Time of Seven Days or More in Which to File Response Pleading  ("First Motion for Extension"); (2) Motion to Name Additional Party Defendants and Additional Causes of Action  ("First Motion to Amend"); (3) Motion To Name Additional Causes of Action and the City of Canton and its Officers of Interrogation as Additional Party Defendants  ("Second Motion to Amend"); (4) Concession to the State's Sovereign Immunity and Motion for Leave to File to Allow Plaintiff to Respond in Full to the States Objections to Naming Additional State Agents for Prospective Relief  ("Second Motion for Extension"); and (5) Motion for Injunction to Order the Spalding County Trial Court to Hold a Due Process Bond Hearing or In the Alternative, Order the Trial Court to Provide and Secure the Means for Plaintiff to Have Unregistered Access to the Courts and to Have Possession of His Legal Files to be Able to Wage Legal Pursuit of Grievances  ("Motion for Injunction").
On September 23, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint  ("Complaint"), Plaintiff alleges various violations of his civil rights by Georgia, and City Defendants.
Plaintiff's Complaint is 135 pages long, with only 38 long, rambling, numbered paragraphs, and is composed mainly of conclusory statements regarding City Defendants' alleged wrongdoing in arresting him and in revoking his probation. Plaintiff alleges that, on June 15, 2010, he was involved in a hit and run accident, for which he later took responsibility. On September 16, 2011, he pleaded guilty to felony hit and run, and was sentenced to six years' probation. On September 5, 2012, he was arrested and charged with public drunkenness in Newnan, Georgia, after the police responded to a complaint from the manager of a local Applebees restaurant.
Plaintiff alleges that, on March 21, 2013, he was arrested in Hiram, Georgia. Waitresses at a local Hooters restaurant contacted the police when they suspected that Plaintiff intended to drive while intoxicated. Officers responded to the Hooters, and asked to see Plaintiff's driver's license. Plaintiff alleges that he refused to present his license to the officers. He was arrested for refusing to present his license. Plaintiff contends that, in the course of this arrest, he suffered physical injuries and was "knocked unconscious."
On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff was arrested in Kennesaw, Georgia. Plaintiff contends that, late that night, police officers approached and questioned him as he was walking along the side of a road. Plaintiff alleges that he refused to show his driver's license to the officers upon their request. Plaintiff was arrested and charged with pedestrian under the influence, disorderly conduct, and obstruction. Plaintiff alleges that, in the course of his arrest, he suffered physical injuries, which included a black eye.
Plaintiff contends that, relating to the June 15, 2010, hit and run incident, the State of Georgia illegally charged him with a lesser included charge. Plaintiff argues that the criminal charge to which he pleaded guilty should be voided for vagueness. Plaintiff further contends that his September 5, 2012, March 21, 2013, and September 6, 2013, arrests were illegal, because Plaintiff was not obligated to cooperate with the officers on those occasions.
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deny Plaintiff's First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants committed intentional infliction of emotional distress against him. Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages, unspecified attorney and court fees, a declaration that his constitutional rights were violated by Defendants, and "injunctive relief" against Defendants, to prevent his incarceration on state charges until this action is resolved.
On February 7, 2014, Georgia filed its motion to dismiss  arguing that sovereign immunity deprives the Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Georgia. Also on February 7, 2014, City Defendants filed their Motion for a More Definite Statement , arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. On April 9, 2014, the Court granted  Georgia's motion to dismiss and City Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement, ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before May 9, 2014.
On April 14, 2014, Georgia filed its Rule 54(b) Motion, requesting that the Court certify its April 9, 2014, Order as final and immediately appealable. Plaintiff does not oppose the Rule 54(b) Motion.
On May 12, 2014, City Defendants filed their First Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Court's April 9, 2014, Order.
The Court subsequently determined that Plaintiff had not received a copy of the April 9, 2014, Order, and, on June 3, 2014, another copy of the April 9, 2014, Order was sent to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint on or before July 3, 2014.
On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Extension, requesting an additional seven days, until July 10, 2014, to file his amended complaint.
On July 18, 2014, City Defendants filed their Second Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in compliance with the ...