Agundis v. Rice
| Decision Date | 22 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00122-CG-B |
| Parties | ELIA A. AGUNDIS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN LEON RICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This case is before the Court on Defendants' Renewed Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 30, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45)1. Thesemotions, which have been fully briefed and are ripe for resolution, have been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. CivLR 72(a)(2)(S). Upon consideration of all matters presented, the undersigned RECOMMENDS, for the reasons stated herein, that Defendants' Amended Motions to Dismiss2 be GRANTED as to Defendants Oktibbeha County Sheriff's Department, Judge Dorothy Colom, City of Columbus Police Department, Sheriff Steven Gladney and Chief Oscar Lewis, and that this action, along with Defendant John Rice's Motion to Dismiss, be transferred to the Northern District of Alabama for further proceedings.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2016 naming John Leon Rice (hereinafter "Rice"), Oktibbeha County Sheriff's Department (hereinafter "Sheriff's Department"), Dorothy Colom, Oktibbeha Chancery Court Judge (hereinafter "Judge Colom"), City of Columbus Police Department (hereinafter "Columbus PD"), Sheriff Steven Gladney (hereinafter "Gladney"), and Chief Oscar Lewis (hereinafter "Lewis") as Defendants.3 Plaintiff purports to bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13614, and asserts that she is a citizen of Baldwin County, Alabama, and that each of the individual Defendants can be located in Mississippi. (Doc. 28 at 1). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains fifteen counts5, namely the deprivation of her civil rights under the color of state law and denial of due process against Defendants Judge Colom, McQueen and Gladney (Counts 1, 2); trespass by Defendant Rice (Count 3); municipal liability by DefendantsColom, McQueen and Gladney (Count 6); assault[] and battery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2265, 18 U.S.C. § 2261, and 18 U.S.C. § 2262 by Defendants Judge Colom and Rice (Count 7); felonious injury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261 by Defendants Colom and Rice6 (Count 8); violation of Plaintiff's due process rights, equal protection rights, civil rights, and rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 sections (1), (2), and (3), 42 U.S.C. § 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg, and various Mississippi and Alabama state laws by Defendants Judge Colom, Columbus PD, McQueen, and Gladney (Count 9); injunctive relief (Count 10); interference with Plaintiff's evidence in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) by Defendants Judge Colom, Columbus PD, McQueen, Lewis and Gladney (Count 11); intimidation of Plaintiff and her witnesses by Defendant Colom in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (Count 12); exceeding jurisdiction in violation of the law by Defendant Judge Colom (Count 13); treason by Defendant Judge Colom (Count 14); violation of oath of office by Defendant Judge Colom (Count 15); denial of a translator during trial in violation of federal law and the Sixth Amendment by Defendant Judge Colom (Count 16); and vicarious liability under respondeatsuperior theory by Defendants Judge Colom, McQueen, Lewis and Gladney.(Count 17). (Doc. 28).
The pertinent factual allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint revolve around her relationship with Defendant John Rice. According to Plaintiff, throughout 2012 and 2013, Defendant Rice would enter her home in Mississippi uninvited and subject her and her children to various forms of abuse and harassment. (Doc. 28 at 3-4). Plaintiff alleges that in early 2013, she became pregnant after Defendant Rice sexually assaulted her. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, she gave birth in September of 2013, and in late December 2013, Defendant Rice filed petitions to establish paternity and to gain custody of the child in the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court. (Id. at 5-6; Doc. 44-1).
Plaintiff and her children began moving to Alabama in late 2013, and completed the move in January 2014. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff avers that after moving to Alabama, she obtained a Protection From Abuse Order; however, Defendant Rice continued to threaten and harass her via telephone in violation of the protection order. (Id. at 6). On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff attended a hearing before Judge Dorothy Colom regarding Defendant Rice's request for visitation with his child. (Doc. 44-3 at 1-138). Judge Colom granted Defendant Rice's visitation request and issued an order setting a visitation schedule onDecember 23, 2014. (Id. at 186-192).
Plaintiff filed a number of motions throughout 2015 and 2016 regarding her ongoing custody dispute with Defendant Rice. (Id. at 179-201, 226-237). Judge Colom denied Plaintiff's motions. (Id.). Plaintiff appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court and argued that Judge Colom should recuse herself from the case. (Doc. 44-4). On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Judge Colom's decisions, and denied Plaintiff's motion for recusal. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims that Rice harassed her with phone calls and death threats throughout 2014 and 2015, and that in December 2015, Rice, an unnamed Sheriff employee, and Oktibbeha County bailiff Sykes crossed state lines into Birmingham, Alabama, and assaulted her while attempting to serve her in conjunction with the Mississippi custody proceedings. (Doc. 28 at 5-8).
Plaintiff also contends that Defendants McQueen, Lewis, Gladney, and the Columbus PD did not respond to her repeated attempts to contact them in 2012 regarding Defendant Rice's behavior. (Id. at 3, 12). She also claims that the Oktibbeha County Sheriff's Department refused to investigate her claims against Defendant Rice. (Id. at 9, 12). Plaintiff has also asserted many claims against Defendant Judge Colom based on her handling of the child custody dispute. Plaintiff contends that Judge Colom was biased and issued improper rulings in an effortto obstruct Plaintiff's attempts to appeal. (Id. at 6-8). She further alleges that Judge Colom ignored the Protection From Abuse Orders issued in Alabama and acted outside her jurisdiction by keeping the custody case in Mississippi. (Id. at 13).
In response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, each of the Defendants filed renewed Motions to Dismiss. (Docs. 30, 37, 39, 44). Defendant Colom argues that she is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for the claims asserted against her in her individual capacity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity for Plaintiff's official capacity claims against her. Defendant Colom further argues that the Younger abstention and/or Rooker-Feldman doctrines prohibits this Court from enjoining any ongoing Chancery Court proceedings, and that this Courts lacks personal jurisdiction over her because she has no substantial (or otherwise) minimum contacts with the State of Alabama; thus, the claims against her are due to be dismissed under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 30).
Defendant City of Columbus PD argues that Plaintiff's claims against it should be dismissed because it is not a political subdivision or legal entity capable of being sued, that Plaintiff failed to perfect proper service on it, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) asthe City does not have substantial minimum contacts with the State of Alabama, and that Plaintiff's claims against the City of Columbus PD are barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 37).
Defendant Lewis argues that Plaintiff failed to perfect service against him, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him as there is no allegation that he had substantial minimum contacts with the State of Alabama, and that Plaintiff's claims against him are barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 39). Defendant Oktibbeha City Sheriff's Department and Steven Gladney argue that the Sheriff's Department is not a legal entity capable of being sued, that Plaintiff failed to perfect proper service on these Defendants, and that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over these Defendants due to lack of substantial minimum contacts with the State of Alabama. (Doc. 44). Finally, Defendant Rice contends that Plaintiff failed to perfect proper service on him, that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims should be dismissed due to lack of state action on Rice's part, and that Plaintiff's §1983 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (Id.).
As a preliminary matter, the undersigned observes that when considering a pro se litigant's allegations, a court gives them a liberal construction holding them to a more lenient standardthan those of an attorney, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), but it does not have "license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 791, 709 (11th Cir. 2010) ( Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)). Furthermore, a court treats as true factual allegations, but it does not treat as true conclusory assertions or a recitation of a cause of action's elements. Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 681, 129 S.Ct. at 1951. In addition, a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).
"As a general rule, courts should address issues relating to personal jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a plaintiff's claims, as a defendant that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court cannot be bound by its rulings." Range Creek Holdings, LLC v. Cypress Capital II, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23951, *8-9, 2009 WL 857533 (S.D....
To continue reading
Request your trial