Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Randy Foote filed a lawsuit against Officer Christopher Daino, Colonel Joseph S. Bloch, and New Castle County regarding an incident stemming from Officer Daino's actions in trying to prevent Plaintiff from violating a state Protection from Abuse order. The Complaint was originally filed in Delaware Superior Court on May 16, 2024, and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Court granted Defendant New Castle County's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim on Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6, and granted the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Process.
Issues
- Whether the Court should grant Defendant New Castle County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) regarding Counts 3 (Section 1983 municipal liability), Count 4 (Section 1983 unlawful detention and arrest), Count 5 (negligence claims), and Count 6 (ADA violation)
- Whether the Court should grant Defendants Christopher Daino and Joseph Bloch's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Serve Process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) because Plaintiff failed to properly effectuate service on the Individual Defendants within the 120-day deadline
Holdings
The Court granted Defendant New Castle County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Defendants Christopher Daino and Joseph Bloch's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Process. Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 asserted against New Castle County were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Delaware County and Municipal Tort Claims Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Claims against individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice for failure to effectuate proper service. The Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and any motion for leave to amend must be filed on or before September 16, 2025.
Remedies
- Defendant New Castle County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is GRANTED. Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 asserted against New Castle County are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants Christopher Daino and Joseph Bloch's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Serve Process is GRANTED. The claims against Defendants Daino and Bloch are DISMISSED without prejudice. As there are no remaining claims against any Defendant, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
- Any motion for leave to amend must be filed on or before September 16, 2025.
Legal Principles
- Service in official capacity does not effectuate service in individual capacity. Claims against municipal officers in official capacity are claims against the municipality itself. The praecipe did not identify Individual Defendants Daino and Bloch specifically, and Plaintiff did not request personal service on either defendant. Service at the police department or government center locations was insufficient for individual capacity claims.
- The court applied the Delaware County and Municipal Tort Claims Act (CMTCA), 10 Del. C. § 4011(a), which immunizes counties from tort claims. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, municipalities can only be sued for constitutional deprivations caused by policy or custom, not individual officer conduct. The Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts supporting a policy or custom that caused Plaintiff's injury, and did not allege wanton negligence or willful malicious intent sufficient to overcome CMTCA immunity.
- Plaintiff bore the burden of establishing proper service of process on Individual Defendants. Plaintiff failed to effectuate service within the 120-day deadline under Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 4(j) (filed May 16, 2024, deadline September 13, 2024). The praecipe did not specifically identify Individual Defendants, and they were not personally served. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate good cause for the service failure.
Precedent Name
- Nixon v. Rutter
- Bush v. City of Wilmington
- Ballard v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc.
- Holmes v. D'Elia
- Huelsenbeck v. Fermin-Jimenez
- Ferrell v. City of Wilmington
Cited Statute
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) - Failure to serve process
- 10 Del. C. § 4011(a) - Municipal tort immunity
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- ADA - 42 U.S.C. § 12132
Judge Name
Jennifer L. Hall
Passage Text
- 3. To survive a motion to dismiss, a Complaint alleging a § 1983 claim against a municipality must allege 'facts supporting both a plausible inference that there was a policy or custom that caused Plaintiff's injury and a plausible inference that the City was the deliberate, 'moving force' behind it.' Ferrell v. City of Wilmington, No. 21-1593, 2023 WL 1437765, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 1, 2023) (citations omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 2351795 (D. Del. Mar. 3, 2023). Plaintiff has not pointed the Court to any factual allegations in the Complaint plausibly supporting the existence of a relevant policy or custom.
- 1. Defendant New Castle County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (D.I. 3) is GRANTED. Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 asserted against New Castle County are DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Defendants Christopher Daino and Joseph Bloch's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Serve Process (D.I. 7) is GRANTED. The claims against Defendants Daino and Bloch are DISMISSED without prejudice.
- 9. What's more, even if the Individual Defendants had been served in their official capacities, that would not effectuate service over them in their individual capacities. See Bush v. City of Wilmington, No. 89-628, 1990 WL 10824350, at *5 n.7 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 1990) ('The fact that [the Defendants] may have been properly served in their official capacities does not mean that they have been properly served in their individual capacities.'); cf. 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1109 (4th ed. 2024) (explaining that a defendant sued in their individual capacity 'must be served as would any other individual defendant').