# Wilson

> District Court, E.D. Tennessee · April 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309753

## Case

- **Full name:** Shericka Wilson v. Anthony Pitts, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** April 7, 2026
- **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/11309753

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SHERICKA WILSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 3:25-CV-430-TAV-DCP
)
ANTHONY PITTS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This civil matter is before the Court on the Knoxville Police Department’s (“KPD”)
and the City of Knoxville’s (“the City”) motion to dismiss [Doc. 15]. Plaintiff has not
responded, and the time for doing so has long expired. See E.D. Tenn. L. R. 7.1(a). For the
reasons explained below, the Court will GRANT the motion to dismiss [Doc. 15], and all
claims against KPD and the City will be DISMISSED.
I. Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant action against defendants (1) Anthony
Pitts, a Tennessee State Trooper, in his individual and official capacities; (2) Kevin Aguilar,
a KPD officer, in his individual and official capacities; (3) the Tennessee Highway Patrol;
and (4) the KPD [Doc. 1, pp. 2–3]. Plaintiff indicates that her claims are brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights [Id. at 3].
Plaintiff states that on September 4, 2024, she was pulled over by Trooper Pitts [Id.
at 4]. During the stop, Trooper Pitts requested to search her vehicle [Id.]. Plaintiff initially
consented to the search, but then “clearly withdrew consent” before the search was
conducted [Id.]. Plaintiff asked if she was free to go, but Trooper Pitts responded “no,” and
contained to detain plaintiff “without legal justification” [Id.]. Despite plaintiff’s
withdrawal of consent to the search, Trooper Pitts summoned a K-9 unit [Id.]. Officer

Aguilar of the KPD arrived with the K-9 and conducted a dog sniff and search of plaintiff’s
vehicle [Id.]. Subsequently, Trooper Pitts conducted a physical search of the vehicle [Id.].
No illegal items or contraband were found [Id.]. Plaintiff states that neither Trooper Pitts
nor Officer Aguilar had a warrant or probable cause to justify continuing the detention or
conducting searches after plaintiff withdrew her consent [Id.]. As a result, she contends that

she was unlawfully detained and subjected to an unreasonable search in violation of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments [Id.].
Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, she experienced emotional distress and loss of
employment and wages, as she was denied a job opportunity as a result of the incident [Id.
at 5]. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000.00, and punitive

damages in the amount of $100,000.00 [Id.]. She also seeks declaratory relief confirming
that the alleged actions violated her constitutional rights [Id.].
II. Standard of Review
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must first comply
with Rule 8(a)(2) which requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Although this standard does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ it does require more than ‘labels and conclusions’ or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’” Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride,
Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)). Specifically, “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 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). This requires “more than a sheer

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A complaint that pleads facts “merely
consistent with” liability, “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Finally, “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.” Id. at 678.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “must construe the
complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, accept all well-pled factual allegations as
true, and determine whether plaintiffs undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of

those allegations that would entitle them to relief.” Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d
516, 519 (6th Cir. 2008). However, the Court need not accept legal conclusions or
unwarranted factual inferences as true. Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693, 698
(6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.
1987)).

Given plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court notes that federal courts have a duty to
“liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel.” Bouyer v. Simon, 22 F. App’x
611, 612 (6th Cir. 2001). At the same time, however, “the lenient treatment generally
accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.
1996). As such, courts have not typically “been willing to abrogate basic pleading essentials
in pro se suits.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

III. Analysis
As an initial matter, the Court notes that KPD and the City filed their motion to
dismiss on October 17, 2025 [Doc. 15]. Since that time, plaintiff has not responded to the
motion, nor taken any other action in this case. A “[c]ourt may interpret the absence of a
response to a motion to dismiss as a waiver of opposition.” Miles v. Transunion, LLC, No.

1:22-cv-281, 2022 WL 2342656, at *1 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2022) (granting a motion to
dismiss as unopposed). In other words, “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 that motion.” Scott v. State of Tenn., 878 F.2d 382 (table), 1989 WL 72470,
at *2 (6th Cir. 1989); see also E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2 (“Failure to respond to a motion may be

deemed a waiver of any opposition to the relief sought.”). The Court finds that plaintiff’s
failure to respond to the motion to dismiss, despite nearly six months having elapsed since
its filing, constitutes a waiver of any opposition to dismissal of any claims against KPD and
the City. For this reason alone, KPD and the City’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 15] is
GRANTED. However, for the sake of completeness, and particularly in light of plaintiff’s

pro se status, the Court will briefly address the merits of the motion.
A. KPD is Not an Entity Subject to Suit
KPD first argues that it is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983 [Doc. 16, p. 2].
Specifically, KPD asserts that it is an administrative unit of the City, and therefore, is not

an entity subject to suit under § 1983 [Id. at 2–3].
The Court agrees that KPD is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983. “[P]olice
departments are not entities subject to suit under § 1983.” Wade v. Michigan, No. 2:24-cv-
11402, 2024 WL 4149716, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 11, 2024); see also Campbell v.
Anderson Cnty., 695 F. Supp. 2d 764, 770 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 8, 2010) (“The Anderson

County Sheriff’s Office is not a suable entity and is a Department within Anderson
County”); Mathes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., No. 3:10-cv-496, 2010
WL 3341889, at *2 (“federal district courts in Tennessee have frequently and uniformly
held that police departments and sheriff’s departments are not proper parties to a § 1983
suit.”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that KPD is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983.
Rather, the municipality itself, that is, the City of Knoxville, would be the appropriate
defendant. See Dickey v. Knoxville Police Dep’t, 2018 WL 3762988, at *2 (E.D. Tenn.
Aug. 8, 2018) (“KPD correctly argues that it is not a legal entity subject to suit under § 1983.
KPD is not a municipality, but is a municipal agency or department of the City of Knoxville

rather than a separate legal entity”). For this reason, KPD’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 15] is
GRANTED, and plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against KPD is DISMISSED.
B. Monell Liability
Notably, plaintiff does not name the City as a defendant in this action. Nonetheless,
KPD and the City argue that, even if plaintiff had properly named the City, rather than KPD,

as a defendant, plaintiff has failed to identify an unconstitutional policy or custom of the
City or KPD that caused her claimed damages, as required for municipal liability [Doc. 16,
pp. 3, 5]. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff claims that the City is liable because of the
actions of one of its employees, under § 1983, municipalities are not liable for the alleged
civil rights violations of employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior [Id. at 5].

In general, a plaintiff may not obtain relief from a municipality under § 1983 “on a
respondeat superior theory—in other words, ‘solely because it employs a tortfeasor.’”
D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 388–89 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)). Rather, “a municipality is liable under § 1983 only
where, ‘through its deliberate conduct,’ it was ‘the “moving force” behind the injury

alleged.’” Id. (citation omitted). That is, a municipality may be liable only if the plaintiff
identifies an “illegal policy or custom” that caused a violation of the plaintiff’s
constitutional rights. Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Monell,
436 U.S. at 694).
In her complaint [Doc. 1], plaintiff makes no reference to any custom or policy of

the City or the KPD. Rather, she merely sets forth the alleged facts of the stop and search
of her vehicle, without any further allegations regarding policies or customs. Such is
insufficient to state a claim under § 1983 as to the City. See Burgess, 735 F.3d at 478 (citing
Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). And, to the extent that plaintiff would seek to base a claim against
the City on the actions of its employees, the City cannot be held liable under § 1983 based
on a theory of respondeat superior. See D’Ambrosio, 747 F.3d at 388–89. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that, even to the extent that plaintiff could be deemed to have raised a

§ 1983 claim against the City, she has failed to state a claim for relief. KPD and the City’s
motion to dismiss [Doc. 15] is therefore GRANTED, and any § 1983 claim against the City
is DISMISSED.
C. State Law Claims Barred by TGTLA
Finally, KPD and the City argue that any state law claims are barred by the Tennessee

Governmental Tort Liability Act (“TGTLA”) [Doc. 16, p. 6]. KPD and the City note that
plaintiff did not specifically cite the TGTLA in her complaint, but certain allegations appear
to be tort claims covered by that act [Id.]. They assert that, while, generally, a municipality
can be liable for negligent acts of its employees under the TGTLA, certain torts are excluded
from the removal of immunity, including any that arise out of civil rights violations [Id.

(citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(2))].
Notably, plaintiff’s complaint does not indicate that she seeks to raise any claim
under the TGTLA. Nonetheless, the Court notes that, under the TGTLA, a municipality is
generally subject to suit for civil claims sounding in negligence with certain exceptions.
Campbell, 695 F. Supp. 2d at 777. One such exception is found in Tennessee Code

Annotated § 29-20-205(2), which states that Tennessee waives immunity from suit for
injuries proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee within the scope
of his employment, except if the injury arises out of a civil rights violation. Id. (citing
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(2)). As a result, a municipality in Tennessee retains
immunity from suit under the TGTLA for negligent acts or omissions of its employees if
the injury arises out of the torts specified in § 29-20-205(2), which includes civil rights
violations. Id.; see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(2). Because plaintiff’s claims clearly

stem from alleged civil rights violations, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to bring a claim
against KPD or the City under the TGTLA, such claim is barred by sovereign immunity.
KPD and the City’s motion [Doc. 15] is therefore GRANTED on this ground, and any
TGTLA claim against them in the complaint is DISMISSED.
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motion to dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED. All claims
against KPD or the City are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11309753. Public record. Not legal advice.