# Coke v. City of Birmingham, Alabama

> District Court, N.D. Alabama · September 18, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11140453

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** September 18, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11140453

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARKUS COKE, }
}
Plaintiff, }
}
v. }
} Case No.: 2:23-cv-00280-MHH
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, et al., }
}
Defendants. }
}
}

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this civil rights action, pro se plaintiff Markus Coke contends that
Birmingham Police Officer Nicholas George violated his constitutional rights while
Officer George was working for Zydeco, a night club located in downtown
Birmingham. Mr. Coke has sued the City of Birmingham, the Birmingham Police
Department, and Zydeco.1 Mr. Coke alleges that the defendants violated his civil
rights when Officer George stopped him after he left Zydeco and transported him
back to Zydeco against his will. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Coke asserts
against the defendants claims for violations of his rights under the Fourth and Eighth

1 Mr. Coke also sued “N.A. George” and Destini Teele. (Doc. 1). Mr. Coke did not serve Officer
George with a summons and complaint, and Officer George has passed away. (See Doc. 3; Doc.
50, p. 2, ¶ 3; Doc. 61-1, p. 3). The Court has dismissed Ms. Teele as a defendant. (Doc. 45). The
City, the BPD, and Zydeco remain as defendants.
Amendments and state law claims for kidnapping, false arrest, assault, harassment,
fraud, false imprisonment, unlawful arrest, and conspiracy. Mr. Coke and the

defendants have filed motions for summary judgment on Mr. Coke’s claims.
This opinion resolves these pending cross-motions. The opinion opens with
a statement of the legal standard that governs cross-motions for summary

judgment. Then, consistent with that standard, the Court summarizes the evidence
in the summary judgment record. Based on the evidence in the record and the
governing legal standards for each of Mr. Coke’s claims, the Court then resolves
the parties’ summary judgment motions.

I.
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court
“shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). When considering a summary judgment motion, a district
court must view the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party and draw reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the non-

moving party. Sconiers v. Lockhart, 946 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020). When
a district court receives cross-motions for summary judgment, the court “must
methodically take each motion in turn and construe all the facts in favor of the non-

movant for each. If, after engaging in this analysis, the district court determines no
genuine issue of material fact exists, then it may appropriately enter summary
judgment for a party.” Thai Mediation Ass’n of Ala., Inc. v. City of Mobile, 83 F.4th

922, 926 (11th Cir. 2023). “A litigant’s self-serving statements based on personal
knowledge or observation can defeat summary judgment.” United States v. Stein,
881 F.3d 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2018); see also Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707

F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013). Even if a district court doubts the veracity of the
evidence, the court cannot make credibility determinations; that is the work of a
factfinder. Feliciano, 707 F.3d at 1252 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). Still, conclusory statements in a declaration cannot by

themselves create a genuine issue of material fact. See Stein, 881 F.3d at 857 (citing
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)). Additionally, where video
evidence “obviously contradicts” the non-movant’s “version of the facts,” a district

court must “accept the video’s depiction instead of [the non-movant’s] account.”
Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)); see also Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (“When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by

the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”).
Because Mr. Coke is a pro se litigant, the Court construes his submissions

liberally. Caldwell v. Warden, 748 F.3d 1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002)). The Court
considers as evidence “specific facts” in Mr. Coke’s sworn complaint and other

sworn submissions. Caldwell, 748 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Perry v. Thompson, 786
F.2dd 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Plaintiff alleged specific facts in his sworn
complaint and they were required to be considered in sworn form.”)); Stein, 881 F.3d

at 857.
II.

On March 12, 2021, Mr. Coke went to Zydeco. (Doc. 1, p. 4; Doc. 61-3, pp.
6–8). At the time, JJ DeLuca was the manager of Zydeco, and Officer George was
providing security at Zydeco while he was off duty for the BPD. (Doc. 61-2, p. 2;
Doc. 59-1, p. 3). Officer George was wearing his Birmingham Police Department
uniform while working as an off-duty officer. (Doc. 59-1, p. 3).

Mr. Coke was asked to leave Zydeco and was escorted out of the
establishment. (Doc. 61-3, p. 8, tp. 23–25; Doc. 59-1, p. 3). Officer George
approached Mr. Coke as he was getting into his vehicle. (Doc. 61-5, 11:17–11:49).
Mr. Coke and Officer George had a disagreement, (Doc. 61-5, 11:17–11:49), and

Mr. Coke sped off and ran the stop sign at an intersection near Zydeco. (Doc. 61-
3, p. 10, tp. 32–33; Doc. 61-5, 11:47–11:52).2 Officer George got in his BPD

2 Officer George did not record his conversation with Mr. George; Officer George turned on his
body camera at 11:47 p.m. (See Doc. 61-5, 11:17–11:47).
cruiser and pursued Mr. Coke. (Doc. 61-5, 11:51–12:39). The pursuit ended at
Black Market Bar & Grill, approximately five blocks from Zydeco. (Doc. 1, p. 4;

Doc. 61-3, p. 12, tp. 38–40; Doc. 61-5, 12:49–12:55).
At Black Market, Officer George drew his weapon as Mr. Coke exited his
vehicle. (Doc. 1, p. 4; Doc. 61-3, pp. 11–12; Doc. 61-5, 12:50–12:55). Officer

George handcuffed Mr. Coke and placed him in the back of the police cruiser.
(Doc. 1, p. 6; Doc. 61-5, 12:59–14:01). Officer George retrieved Mr. Coke’s
wallet. (Doc. 61-5, 13:40–13:45). Meanwhile, Officer Joshua Willis arrived at
the scene. (Doc. 61-1, p. 6; Doc. 61-5, 14:01). Officer George sent Mr. Coke’s

license information to dispatch to determine whether Mr. Coke had active
warrants; there were none. (Doc. 61-5, 14:56–15:09). Officer George guided Mr.
Coke out of the cruiser and removed the handcuffs. (Doc. 61-5, 17:14–17:49).

Officer Willis led Mr. Coke through a field sobriety test. (Doc. 61-5, 18:00–
22:38). Mr. Coke passed two of three categories of the field sobriety test. (Doc.
61-5, 16:15, 22:40–24:47). Mr. Coke did not have proof of insurance with him.
(Doc. 61-5, 35:14–35:45). In searching for his insurance card, Mr. Coke informed

the officers that he had a pistol in his vehicle. (Doc. 61-1, 34:07–34:34). Mr. Coke
provided Officer George a copy of his pistol license. (Doc. 61-1, 34:48–34:50).
At the end of the encounter, Officer George issued Mr. Coke a citation for

failure to stop at a stop sign; failure to use a seatbelt; reckless driving; and failure
to display insurance. (Doc. 1, p. 9; Doc. 61-5, 37:00–38:15). Then, Officer George
informed Mr. Coke that he was taking him for “a ride . . . back up [] to Zydeco”

because the owner wished to speak to Mr. Coke. (Doc. 1, p. 9; Doc. 61-5, 38:15–
38:24). Mr. Coke agreed and stated that he “w[ould] listen to him.” (Doc. 61-5,
38:23–38:26). Mr. Coke opened the police cruiser’s back passenger door and

entered the cruiser. (Doc. 61-5, 38:40–38:54).
At Zydeco, Mr. DeLuca walked to the patrol vehicle and told Mr. Coke he
was not allowed to visit the establishment. (Doc. 1, p. 9; Doc. 61-3, p. 12, tp. 41;
Doc. 61-5, 41:05–41:30).3 Officer George then drove Mr. Coke back to Black

Market and dropped Mr. Coke at his vehicle. (Doc. 61-3, pp. 13–14; Doc. 61-5,
41:40–43:01).4 Mr. Coke did not seek medical treatment or make an insurance

3 The body camera footage does not show Mr. DeLuca as he spoke with Mr. Coke. The footage
does not capture all of Mr. DeLuca’s conversation with Mr. Coke, but Officer George’s body
camera recorded Mr. DeLuca stating to Mr. Coke: “Hey, man. You can’t come back up here
anymore, okay?” (Doc. 61-5, 41:05–41:30).

4 Mr. Coke attached to his complaint a letter addressed to the clerk for the City of Birmingham
that Mr. Coke filed on December 16, 2021. (Doc. 1, pp. 8–12). In his letter, Mr. Coke provides
the following description of events:

I and my party left Club Zydeco on the date stated above located at 2001 15th
Avenue S, and parked three blocks from Club Zydeco to go to another
establishment. After I properly parked and was getting out of my vehicle, I noticed
blue lights being turned on behind me and in the roadway. I and the other two in
my party completed the exit from my vehicle. The husband asked N.A. George,
officer no. 3685, “WHY ARE YOU STOPPING HIM HE DID NOT DO
ANYTHING.” N.A. George, officer no. 3685 replied in a loud aggressive tone,
“GET THE [EXPLETIVE] OUTTA HERE” in case you did not believe what you
read, let me repeat what N.A. George, officer no. 3685 said to two citizens of
Birmingham, Alabama. “GET THE [EXPLETIVE] OUTTA HERE.” . . . N.A.
George, officer no. 3685 asked for my drivers license, he then told me I was under
claim because of the encounter. (Doc. 61-3, pp. 15–16, tp. 53–54).
III.

***
The Court begins its analysis of Mr. Coke’s claims with his claims against the
City of Birmingham and the Birmingham Police Department. “[P]olice departments

are not usually legal entities subject to suit,” and the “capacity to sue or be sued shall
be determined by the law of the state in which the district court” is located. Dean v.
Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (collecting cases). In the City of
Birmingham’s answer in this case, the City asserted that “the Birmingham Police

Department is a department of the City of Birmingham and not a separate entity from
the City.” (Doc. 47, pp. 1–2; see also Doc. 5, p. 2; Doc. 5-1, pp. 4–7; Doc. 62-1, pp.
27–30). Indeed, under Alabama law, police departments and other “subordinate

entities of municipalities, counties, and towns that are not separate legal entities or

arrest, he handcuffed me, put me in the back of his patrol car. He said nothing to
me, I knew I was going to jail, why, I did not know. He then drove three blocks
back to Zydeco, where we had just left minutes ago. He parked in front of the Club,
the front door is only about 15 feet away, someone was waiting at the door and
when he [saw] the patrol car pull up, he walked over to my door and told me that I
was barred from the Club. The man walked away and we drove off. N.A. George,
officer no. 3685, drove back to my parked car, I stayed handcuffed in the back seat
while he was doing something in the front seat. It seemed like hours but after
minutes N.A. George, officer no. 3685 got out, opened my door, unhandcuffed me,
handed me my drivers license, handed me traffic tickets and drove away.

(Doc. 1, pp. 8–10). Per Scott and Gee, the Court credits the body camera evidence over Mr. Coke’s
account of the events where the video evidence contradicts Mr. Coke’s version of events. See
Scott, 550 U.S. at 380; Gee, 625 F.3d at 1315.
bodies do not have the capacity to sue or be sued” absent specific statutory authority.
Ex parte Dixon, 55 So. 3d 1171, 1172 n.1 (Ala. 2010) (quoting 56 Am. Jur. 2d

Municipal Corps. § 787 (2000)); see also Jones v. Hutchinson, Case No.: 2:08-cv-
02082-HGD, 2008 WL 11423963, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 18, 2008) (citing Dean, 951
F.2d at 1214) (“The City of Birmingham Police Department is not a legal entity

subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore is not a proper defendant in this
action.”).
Because the Birmingham Police Department generally is not subject to suit, and
Mr. Coke has not cited a statutory basis for his claims against the BPD, the Court

concludes, as a matter of law, that Mr. Coke may not pursue federal or state claims
against the Birmingham Police Department.
Mr. Coke asserts his federal constitutional claims against the City under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Municipalities may not be held liable under § 1983 for the acts of
city employees under the theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); McDowell v. Brown, 932 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th
Cir. 2004). To hold a city liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he

was deprived of a federally protected right by the tortious act of a city employee who
acted “pursuant to official municipal policy.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 697; see also
Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986) (“The ‘official policy’ requirement

was intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the
municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for
which the municipality is actually responsible.” (emphasis in Pembaur)). For the

City to be liable, Mr. Coke must show that his constitutional rights were violated,
that the City has a custom or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to his
constitutional rights, and that the policy or custom caused the constitutional

violation. McDowell, 392 F.3d at 1289.
For purposes of Monell liability, a policy is “a decision that is officially
adopted by the municipality, or created by an official of such rank that he or she
could be said to be acting on behalf of the municipality . . . A custom is a practice

that is so settled and permanent that it takes on the force of law.” Sewell v. Town of
Lake Hamilton, 117 F.3d 488, 489 (11th Cir. 1997). “A municipality can be liable
when ‘a series of decisions by a subordinate official manifest[s] a ‘custom or usage’

of which the supervisor must have been aware.’” Church v. City of Huntsville, 30
F.3d 1332, 1343 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S.
112, 130 (1988)). “[T]o demonstrate a policy or custom, it is generally necessary to
show a persistent and wide-spread practice. Moreover, actual or constructive

knowledge of such customs must be attributed to the governing body of the
municipality.” Depew v. City of St. Mary’s, 787 F.2d 1496, 1499 (11th Cir. 1986).
Here, Mr. Coke has not provided evidence of a municipal policy or custom to

support his claim against the City as required by Monell. In his deposition, Mr. Coke
stated that the body camera footage supports his assertion that the City has a policy
or custom of violating individuals’ civil rights, (Doc. 61-3, p. 16, tp. 55–57), but the

body camera footage shows only the March 12, 2021, encounter. A single instance
of alleged constitutional violations cannot support § 1983 liability against a
municipality. See City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d at 1343; Depew, 787 F.2d at 1499.

Because Mr. Coke has not identified a custom or policy implemented or adopted by
the City that causes BPD officers to deprive citizens of their Fourth or Eighth
Amendment rights, the City is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The City asserts that Mr. Coke has abandoned his state law claims against the

City. (Doc. 62-1, p. 30). In his response to the City’s motion, (Doc. 66), Mr. Coke
does not address the City’s argument concerning his state-law claims. Therefore,
Mr. Coke has abandoned those claims. See Jordan v. Conway, 441 Fed. Appx. 761,

762 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir.
2008)) (“Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, ‘issues not briefed on appeal
by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.’”). The Court will enter judgment for
the City on those claims.5

5 The Court notes that under Alabama law, a city may be sued for negligent acts of its employees
but not intentional torts of its employees. ALA. CODE § 11-47-190; Franklin v. City of Huntsville,
670 So. 2d 848, 850 (Ala. 1995) (“Section 11-47-190 provides for an action against a municipality
for the ‘neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness’ of its agents, not for their intentional torts.”); see also
Ex parte City of Gadsden, 718 So. 2d 716, 721 (Ala. 1998). Under Alabama law, assault and fraud
are intentional torts. Wright v. Wright, 654 So. 2d 542, 545 (Ala. 1995) (assault); McCullough
v. Allstate Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 256 So. 3d 103, 110 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (quoting Patten v.
Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 670 So. 2d 854, 856 (Ala. 1995)) (fraud). False arrest and false imprisonment
***

Turning to Mr. Coke’s claims against Zydeco, Mr. Coke asserts that Zydeco
is liable for Officer George’s conduct in detaining him and transporting him from
Black Market to Zydeco and back again to his vehicle at Black Market. To support
his state law claims concerning this series of events, Mr. Coke relies on the fact that

Officer George was working off-duty as a security guard for Zydeco at the time of
the encounter, not as a Birmingham police officer. (Doc. 61-3, pp. 19–22).
An off-duty police officer’s status may transform into active duty if he or she

witnesses a crime. Dinmark v. Farrier, 510 So. 2d 819, 820–21 n.1 (Ala. 1987)
(citing Robinson v. State, 361 So. 2d 1113 (Ala. 1978) (“A change in the policeman’s
status would occur if he saw a crime committed in his presence.”); Perry v.
Greyhound Bus Lines, 491 So. 2d 926, 926 (Ala. 1986) (“Because the offense for

which Perry was arrested was committed in the officers’ presence, we affirm

traditionally are intentional torts unless a plaintiff proves that such acts are part of “a factual pattern
that demonstrates ‘neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness.’” Franklin, 670 So. 2d at 852. The
Court is not aware of a civil harassment claim other than a claim for sexual harassment, and sexual
harassment is an intentional tort. See Machen v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc., 761 So. 2d
981, 985 n.3 (Ala. 1999) (quoting Potts v. BE&K Constr. Co., 604 So. 2d 398, 400 (Ala. 1992)).
Kidnapping is a crime, not a tort. See ALA. CODE §§ 13A-6-43, 13A-6-44. Additionally, “[a]
plaintiff alleging a conspiracy must have a valid underlying cause of action.” DGB, LLC v. Hinds,
55 So. 3d 218, 234 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Callens v. Jefferson Cnty. Nursing Home, 769 So. 2d 273,
280 (Ala. 2000)) (brackets added). Thus, under Alabama law, Mr. Coke may not pursue his state
law claims against the City.
summary judgment . . ..”); see also Parker v. Dillard’s Inc., Case No.: 1:20-cv-
00111-CLM, 2021 WL 63342, at *1–2 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 7, 2021).

Here, as Officer George’s body cam recording shows, as Mr. Coke drove
away from Zydeco, he ran a stop sign. That is a violation of Ala. Code § 32-5A-
112(B). (Doc. 61-3, p. 10, tp. 32–33; Doc. 61-5, 11:47–11:52). When Officer

George witnessed Mr. Coke run the stop sign, his status as an off-duty police officer
transformed into active duty, and Officer George could pursue and detain Mr. Coke.
See Dinmark, 510 So. 2d at 820–21 n.1. To the extent that Mr. Coke contends that
Officer George unlawfully transported him to Zydeco to speak to Mr. DeLuca, the

video evidence demonstrates that Mr. Coke opened the BPD cruiser door and
voluntarily accompanied Officer George to Zydeco. This video evidence contradicts
Mr. Coke’s effort to cast his return to Zydeco as kidnapping or an unlawful arrest.

Accordingly, Mr. Coke’s claims against Zydeco fail as a matter of law.6
IV.
For the reasons explained above, the Court grants the defendants’ motions for
summary judgment and enters judgment for the defendants on Mr. Coke’s claims.

Because the Court grants the City’s and Zydeco’s motions for summary judgment

6 To the extent that Mr. Coke attempts to assert a § 1983 claim against Zydeco by describing
Zydeco as liable “under the color of state,” Mr. Coke has not pleaded or otherwise demonstrated
that Zydeco, a private business, falls into one of the narrow exceptions to the general rule that
private parties are not state actors for purposes of § 1983. Charles v. Johnson, 18 F.4th 686, 694–
96 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 929 (1982)); American
Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 52 (1999).
as to each of Mr. Coke’s claims, the Court denies Mr. Coke’s cross-motion for

summary judgment. The Clerk of Court shall please TERM Docs. 54, 59, and 62
and close this case. The Clerk of Court shall please also mail a copy of this order to
Mr. Coke.

DONE and ORDERED this September 18, 2025.

adele HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11140453. Public record. Not legal advice.