The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SEAN MURRAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-925-J
)
JEREMY DARWENT, in his individual )
capacity, and MARY WILLIAMS, in her )
individual capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 7]. Plaintiff has filed a
response1, and Defendants have filed a reply2.
I. Background3
On February 20, 2023, Plaintiff was driving his car in Moore, Oklahoma. Plaintiff’s car
had a malfunctioning brake light, and Defendant Jeremy Darwent, a Moore Police Officer, initiated
a traffic stop of Plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff pulled over and stopped in a parking lot. During the stop,
Defendant Darwent called dispatch and requested another unit because he suspected Plaintiff was
under the influence of drugs. Defendant Mary Williams, a Moore Police Officer, responded,
arrived on the scene, and observed what transpired during the stop of Plaintiff.
1 Plaintiff provides body and dash cam videos in support of his response to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. The Court declines to convert this motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment
and has not reviewed the videos for purposes of ruling on this motion.
2 On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a surreply [Doc. No. 12]. Plaintiff, however, did not obtain
leave of Court prior to filing his surreply. The Court, accordingly, strikes Plaintiff’s surreply.
3 The information contained in this Background section is based on the allegations set forth in
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1].
During the stop, Defendant Darwent asked Plaintiff several questions regarding whether
he had ingested or used illegal drugs or had been drinking. Plaintiff denied that he had used or
ingested drugs or alcohol or that he was under the influence. Defendant Darwent asked Plaintiff
to perform a field sobriety test, which Plaintiff consented to do. After the test was concluded,
Defendant Darwent arrested Plaintiff for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of
drugs. During the arrest, Plaintiff agreed to submit to a blood test; a blood draw was obtained
from Plaintiff and submitted to a laboratory.
Plaintiff was booked into the Cleveland County Detention Center where he spent
approximately three days before he was able to post bond. On August 25, 2023, the State of
Oklahoma dismissed the charge against Plaintiff because no drugs or alcohol were detected in his
blood sample. On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case for false arrest and
unlawful incarceration against Defendants. Defendants now move the Court to dismiss this case
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II. Standard of Review
Regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the United States Supreme
Court has held:
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. 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. Where a complaint pleads facts that
are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of
the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A court
“must determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements
necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed.” Lane v. Simon,
495 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Finally, “[a] court
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint presumes all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and
construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109
(10th Cir. 1991).
III. Analysis
Defendants assert Plaintiff has failed to state a § 1983 claim for false arrest and assert they
are entitled to qualified immunity.4 “District courts may grant a motion to dismiss based on
qualified immunity, but [a]sserting a qualified immunity defense via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion …
subjects the defendant to a more challenging standard of review than would apply on summary
judgment. Specifically, the court analyzes the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint.”
Truman v. Orem City, 1 F.4th 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations and citations
omitted) (emphasis in original).
A § 1983 defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity is an
affirmative defense [that] creates a presumption that the defendant
is immune from suit. To overcome this presumption, the plaintiff
must show (1) the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or
statutory right , and (2) that right was clearly established at the time
of the defendant’s complained-of conduct. A right is clearly
established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on
point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other
courts shows that the right must be as the plaintiff maintains. Thus,
the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear [so] that a
reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates
4 Because the qualified immunity analysis includes a determination as to whether Defendants’
actions violated a constitutional right, Defendants’ alternative assertion that Plaintiff has failed to
state a § 1983 claim is necessarily included within the Court’s qualified immunity analysis and
determination.
that right. But [the] analysis is not a scavenger hunt for prior cases
with precisely the same facts, and a prior case need not be exactly
parallel to the conduct here for the officials to have been on notice
of clearly established law.
Td.
Having reviewed the Complaint, and presuming all of Plaintiff's factual allegations are true
and construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a § 1983 claim and to overcome Defendants’ claims
of qualified immunity. Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to show that Defendants
did not arguably have probable cause to arrest him. Throughout his Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth
numerous facts contradicting the statements made by Defendant Darwent in his affidavit in support
of Plaintiff's arrest. Additionally, the Court finds that at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, the
constitutional probable cause requirement for an arrest was clearly established. Accordingly, the
Court finds Plaintiffs claims should not be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
No. 7].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15" day of December, 2023.
CERAM.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE