United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
DALE M. IRVING, Plaintiff,
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY and BURLINGTON COUNTY ADJUSTER in his official and individual capacity, Defendants.
RICHARD W. STORY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint  and Plaintiff's Motion
to File Excess Pages . After reviewing the record, the
Court enters the following Order.
Plaintiff Dale M. Irving filed this lawsuit against the Board
of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, New Jersey
(“Burlington County”) and the Burlington County
Adjuster (“the Adjuster”) for violations of his
civil rights and libel.
alleges that, about 15 years ago, he moved from Burlington
County to Gwinnett County, Georgia. (Am. Compl., Dkt. 
¶ 9.) In 2012, Plaintiff obtained a 5-year
“weapons carry license” from the Gwinnett County
Probate Court. (Id. ¶ 11.) When Plaintiff
applied to have his license renewed in 2017, however, he
learned that, sometime between then and 2012,
“Burlington County had placed with the NICS a
derogatory record that Plaintiff had been committed by a
court in Burlington County for a mental defect.”
(Id. ¶ 13.) As a result, Plaintiff was not able
to renew his license. (Id.)
alleges that the information in NICS is false and that
Defendants are responsible for its dissemination.
(Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) Specifically, Plaintiff
says that Defendants failed to implement appropriate policies
and procedures to prevent commitments that were overturned,
like Plaintiff's, from ending up on NICS, and that
Burlington County failed to properly train and supervise the
Adjuster to prevent the publication of such false
information. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18-20.)
on this conduct, Plaintiff raises claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violations of his rights under the Second,
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts 1-5), and a
related state-law claim against the Adjuster for libel (Count
6). Defendants now move to dismiss, in part, because the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Jurisdictional Allegations
Amended Complaint scarcely addresses the Court's personal
jurisdiction over Defendants. Aside from claiming “that
the events and conduct complained of [in the Amended
Complaint] all occurred in the Northern District [of
Georgia], ” (Am. Compl., Dkt.  ¶ 2), Plaintiff
provides only the following information: (1) Burlington
County is a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey
that provides local government services to its residents,
(id. ¶ 7); and (2) the Adjuster is a county
official responsible for assessing the financial status of
those committed to facilities for mental health reasons and
also for filing petitions with the courts related to such
treatment, (id. ¶ 8).
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
support of dismissal, Defendants argue that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over them and, alternatively, that the
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law.
support of its conclusion that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction, Defendants make two claims, supported by
affidavit evidence-namely, the sworn testimony of Kendall J.
Collins, the current County Solicitor/County Adjuster for
Burlington County, (Dkt. [15-3].). First, neither the
Adjuster nor Burlington County has sufficient contacts with
Georgia to confer personal jurisdiction. Neither of them owns
any property in the State. (Id. ¶ 2.) Nor do
they transact business in Georgia or have contacts here.
(Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)
Defendants contend that the alleged acts or omissions giving
rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in New Jersey, not
Georgia. Specifically, Defendants deny the allegations of
wrongdoing in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, but assuming
they were true, reason that any failure to train, supervise,
or implement policies must have occurred in New Jersey where
Defendants are located. (Id. ¶ 7.) And the ...