Bell v. Mejia et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
KEITH MEREDITH BELL 	)
)
v. 	) 	NO. 3:25-cv-01030
) 	Richardson/Holmes
OFFICER VALERIE MEJIA et al. 	)
TO: Honorable Eli Richardson, United States District Judge
R E P O R T 	A N D 	R E C O M E N D A T I O N
By Order entered November 19, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 7), this pro se civil case was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
Presently pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by the City of Gallatin,
Tennessee (Docket Entry No. 16) and by Valerie Mejia and Jared Roach (Docket Entry No. 21).
Plaintiff has not opposed either motion. For the reasons set out below, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that the motions be granted and this action be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
Keith Meredith Bell (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Gallatin, Tennessee. 	On September 12,
2025, he filed this pro se lawsuit against the City of Gallatin, Tennessee (“City of Gallatin”) and
two police officers with the Gallatin Police Department - Valerie Mejia (“Mejia”) and Jared Roach
(“Roach”), who are sued in both their individual and official capacities. See Complaint (Docket
Entry No. 1). 	Plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on claims that his Fourth
Amendment rights were violated by events that occurred on September 13, 2024, when Mejia and
Roach came to his residence to perform a well-check after receiving a report that Plaintiff may be
suicidal. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that that the officers entered his home without consent and
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

2
refused to leave upon his request for them to leave, that he was pushed, physically attacked, and
“tased” by the officers for no reason, and that he was ultimately arrested without a warrant. Id. at
4. Although summons were issued to Defendants at the time the complaint was filed, the docket
reflects that only the City of Gallatin has been served with process. See Docket Entry No. 9.1
By its motion to dismiss, the City of Gallatin argues that it should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the factual allegations in the complaint
fail to support a claim of constitutional liability against it. See Memorandum in Support (Docket
Entry No. 17). The City of Gallatin argues that the law is clear that, as a municipal entity, it cannot
be held liable under Section 1983 on the basis of respondeat superior and that liability against it
must be based on a showing that a municipal policy or custom was the cause of the alleged
constitutional violations. Id. at 3-4. The City of Gallatin points out that the only factual allegation
against it in the complaint is a single sentence in which Plaintiff asserts that the City of Gallatin
“authorized these actions,” see Complaint at 4, which the City of Gallatin contends is both
conclusory and insufficient to support a constitutional claim against it.
By their motion to dismiss, Defendants Mejia and Roach seek their dismissal from this
action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil. 	See Memorandum in Support
(Docket Entry No. 22) at 3. 	They assert that this action was filed in September 12, 2025, and
summons were issued at that time but that Plaintiff has failed to serve them with process and that
1 In conjunction with filing of his complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay all proceedings
because of state criminal charges that were currently pending against him related to the events
alleged in his case. By Order entered December 4, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 8), the Court denied
the motion without prejudice to being re-filed at a later time after Defendants were served with
process and appeared in the case. No other filings on this issue have been made by Plaintiff.
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

3
the 90 day time period provided under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
accomplishing service of process has expired. Id. at 2-3.
The motions to dismiss were filed on January 20, 2026 (City of Gallatin), and on January
30, 2026 (Defendants Mejia and Roach), respectively. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response
to either of the motions to dismiss or otherwise made any filings in response to the motions.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Rule 12(b)(6) allows the defendant to move to dismiss
the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 	“The plausibility
standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
When determining whether the complaint meets this standard, the Court must accept all
the complaint's factual allegations as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor,
and “take all of those facts and inferences and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief.” Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575, 581 (6th Cir. 2018). Because Plaintiff proceeds
pro se, the Court also views his pleadings with some measure of a liberal construction. See Boswell
v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999). However, the Court is not required to accept summary
allegations, legal conclusions, or unwarranted factual inferences. Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389,
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

4
400 (6th Cir. 1999); Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996). Further,
a complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions [or] a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The factual allegations must “be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
B. Rules 4 and 12(b)(5)
Rule 4(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to serve process
upon a defendant. Indeed, service of process upon a defendant is a fundamental requirement in
litigation. 	Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999). 	The
plaintiff bears the burden to establish that service was proper. Spencer v. Caracal Int'l, LLC, 516
F.Supp.3d 755, 758 (M.D. Tenn. 2021); Sawyer v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov't, 18 F.App'x
285, 287 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996)).
Prompt service of process upon a defendant is the norm contemplated by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. To that end, Rule 4(m) provides the following:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court -
on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without
prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the
time for service for an appropriate period.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).
Rule 12(b)(5) provides that a defendant may move to dismiss based on the argument that
service of process is insufficient. 	See 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1353 (3d ed. supp. Apr. 2023) (“A Rule 12(b)(5) motion is the proper
vehicle for challenging the mode of delivery or the lack of delivery of the summons and
complaint.” (footnote omitted)).
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

5
C. Municipal Liability
A municipality cannot be held liable under Section 1983 based on theory of respondeat
superior merely because the municipality employed an actor who is alleged to have committed a
constitutional violation. 	Monnell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). 	Liability
against a municipality under Section 1983 can be assessed only when an official “policy or
custom” caused a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694-95. To
demonstrate a basis for liability, a plaintiff “must (1) identify the municipal policy or custom, (2)
connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to
execution of that policy.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v.
Memphis Police Dep't, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993)). 	In essence, liability attaches only if a
plaintiff shows that it is a policy of the municipality that is the “moving force” behind the
constitutional violation. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989).
III. ANALYSIS
Both motions to dismiss should be granted. Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure
to respond to the motions cannot be ignored. Under Local Rule 7.01(a)(3), Plaintiff’s failure to
file a response indicates that there is no opposition to the motion. 	See also Scott v. State of
Tennessee, 878 F.2d 382, 1989 WL 72470 at *2 (6th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision) (“if
a plaintiff fails to respond or to otherwise oppose a defendant's motion, then the district court may
deem the plaintiff to have waived opposition to the motion.”). Likewise, Plaintiff’s failure to take
action to defend against Defendants’ requests for the dismissal of his lawsuit can be viewed as an
indication that he does not oppose the dismissal of his lawsuit and/or that he has abandoned his
claims. See Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1007-08 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming the district court's
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

6
conclusion that the plaintiff abandoned certain claims by failing to raise them in his brief opposing
the government's motion to dismiss).
Furthermore, after review of the motions, the Court finds that Defendants’ unrebutted
arguments for dismissal are sound. Defendant City of Gallatin accurately sets out the relevant law
for judging the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint and makes a persuasive argument that
Plaintiff’s complaint lacks any factual allegations that would support a plausible claim of
municipal liability against it under Section 1983. As such, the claim against the City of Gallatin
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. 	Because the official capacity claims
against Defendants Mejia and Roach are, in essence, claims asserted against the City of Gallatin,
see Leach v. Shelby County Sheriff, 891 F.2d 1241, 1245 (6th Cir. 1989), dismissal of the official
capacity claims would be warranted for the same reason.
With respect to Defendants Mejia and Roach, the Court notes that Plaintiff was advised by
the Court on two occasions that he was responsible for serving process upon Defendants. 	See
Orders entered November 19, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 7), and December 4, 2025 (Docket Entry
No. 8). 	However, he has not shown that Defendants Mejia and Roach have been served with
process in the several months that have passed since this case was filed. 	He has further not
responded to the motion to dismiss and set forth any basis for why Defendants should not be
dismissed for a lack of timely service of process.2
2 Although Defendants Mejia and Roach couch their motion primarily in terms of dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(5), dismissal under Rule 4(m), which they also reference in their motion, is the
appropriate basis for dismissal since their argument attacks a lack of any timely service at all and
not a defect in the manner or method of service of process that was actually attempted.
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

7
Given the lack of a response from Plaintiff that rebuts Defendants’ argument, it is not the
duty of the Court to “abandon its position of neutrality in favor of a role equivalent to champion
for the non-moving party: seeking out facts, developing legal theories, and finding ways to defeat
the motion.” Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 1992). 	See
Cunningham v. Enagic USA, Inc., 2016 WL 5415106 at *2 (M.D.Tenn. Sept. 28, 2016) (Sharp, J.)
(“This Court is not required to develop legal theories and arguments in Plaintiff’s stead in order to
defeat the motion to dismiss.”); Birmingham-Jefferson Cnty. Transit Auth. v. Boatright, 2009 WL
2601926 at *1 (M.D.Tenn. Aug. 20, 2009) (Campbell, J.) (favorably citing Guarino in review of
motion to dismiss for which there was no response). A plaintiff who brings a lawsuit simply cannot
ignore a request from the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss
should be granted.
Although Defendants both request that the lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice, the Court
does not agree that a dismissal with prejudice is warranted.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
For the reasons set out above, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the motions to
dismiss filed by the City of Gallatin, Tennessee (Docket Entry No. 16) and by Valerie Mejia and
Jared Roach (Docket Entry No. 21) be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the
specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. 	See Rule
72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Failure to file written
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

8
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District
Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response to the objections
must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and
Local Rule 72.02(b).
Signed By:
J. Gregory Wehrman
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01030 Document 23 Filed 02/26/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>