McCoy v. Chapmond et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
TANA McCOY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06125
HOT SPRINGS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Chris Chapmond in his official capacity as Police Chief of
Hot Springs Police Department (“Chapmond”), and Matthew Cheatham, in his official capacity as
a Detective with Hot Springs Police Department (“Cheatham”) Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. 	ECF No. 33. 	Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion and the time for filing a
response has expired. 	Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable
Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the
purpose of making this Report and Recommendation.
I. 	Background:
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Tana McCoy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. 	Plaintiff maintains her rights under the Fourth,
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated by the Defendants. 	Plaintiff named as
Defendants the Hot Springs Police Department and the Arkansas State Police, along with Chief
Chris Chapmond, Detective Matthew Cheatham, Director Bill Bryant, and Corporal Ron Casey all
in their Official Capacities. 	ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff also named the Office of the Prosecutor of
Case 6:24-cv-06125-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Garland County and Prosecuting Attorney Michelle Lawrence in her “Personal” and Official
Capacity.0F
1 	Id. 	Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeks damages as a result of an incident wherein Plaintiff was
arrested for operating a stolen vehicle. 	Plaintiff claims she was the actual owner of the vehicle.
Id.
II. 	Applicable Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that a party may move for judgment on the
pleadings once those pleadings are closed. 	When considering a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, the Court must “accept as true all factual allegations set out in the complaint” and
construe the plaintiff’s complaint “in the light most favorable” to him, “drawing all inferences in
[his] favor.” 	Ashley Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
“Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when there is no dispute as to any material facts
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Id. (citation omitted);
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harris Med. Assocs., LLC, 973 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1051 (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 23, 2013) (explaining that moving party must be “clearly entitled to judgment” (emphasis
added) (citation omitted)).
The same legal standard applies to motions brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) as those brought
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 	See Foster Cable Servs., Inc. v. Deville, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1265, 1270
(W.D. Ark. Feb. 20, 2019). 	The difference between the two motions is one of timing. 	See Union
Ins. Co. v. Scholz, 473 F. Supp. 3d 978, 981 (D.S.D. July 20, 2020). 	Thus, the Court looks to the
rubric of Rule 12(b)(6). 	See Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990).
1 The Court has dismissed all claims against Defendants Lawrence, Office of the Prosecutor of Garland County, the
Hot Springs Police Department, and the Arkansas State Police. ECF No. 16.
Case 6:24-cv-06125-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
A pleading must set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To meet this standard and to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, a complaint need only state factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above
speculative level that is plausible on its face.” 	Foster Cable Servs., Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d at 1270.
“The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that success on the
merits is more than a ‘sheer possibility.’ 	It is not, however, a ‘probability requirement.’” 	Braden
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). 	Further, the Court
is not required to accept as true “legal conclusions, [a] ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action,’ or naked assertions which are so indeterminate as to require further factual
enhancement.” 	Foster Cable Servs. Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d at 1270 (quoting Braden, 588 F.3d at
594). 	“Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976), they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims
advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004).
III. 	Discussion:
Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color of law, of
a citizen’s “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United
States. 	To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) each defendant
acted under color of state law and that (2) he or she violated a right secured by the constitution.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999).
Defendants Chapmond and Cheatham contend Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a claim
against them in their official capacities upon which relief can be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint
against them should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). 	ECF No. 33.
Case 6:24-cv-06125-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff sued Chapmond and Cheatham solely in their official capacities. 	ECF No. 1, pgs.
2-3. Official capacity claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing
governmental entity.” 	Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010).
In other words, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Chapmond and Cheatham
who are employed as police officers with the Hot Springs Police Department are treated as claims
against the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas. 	See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir. 2010).
“[I]t is well established that a municipality [or county] cannot be held liable on a respondeat
superior theory, that is, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.” 	Atkinson v. City of Mountain
View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201, 1214 (8th Cir. 2013). 	To establish liability on the part of the City of
Hot Springs, Arkansas under section 1983, “plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was
committed pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle
v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff has not alleged or described any policy, practice, or custom of the City of Hot
Springs, Arkansas that contributed to a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 	Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Chapmond and Cheatham fail as a matter of
law.
IV. 	Conclusion:
Accordingly, I recommend Defendants Chapmond and Cheatham’s Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings (ECF No. 33) be GRANTED and Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE against them.
Case 6:24-cv-06125-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
It is further recommended that this case be dismissed in its entirety as the other Defendants,
originally named in the Complaint, have been previously dismissed.1F
2
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	The failure to file
timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties
are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by
the district court.
DATED this 27th day of March 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 Defendants Hot Springs Police Department and Arkansas State Police, Office of the Garland County Prosecutor
and Prosecuting Attorney Michelle Lawrence were dismissed on November 20, 2024. 	ECF No. 16. 	Defendants
Bill Bryant and Ron Casey were dismissed on January 3, 2025. 	ECF No. 22.
Case 6:24-cv-06125-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>