Banks v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 09 May 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 20-cv-02074-NYW
• Parties: ROSE BANKS, LAMONT BANKS, COLORADO SPRINGS FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, Plaintiffs, v. TERRELLE JACKSON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

ROSE BANKS, LAMONT BANKS, COLORADO SPRINGS FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, Plaintiffs, v. TERRELLE JACKSON, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-02074-NYW

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 9, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Nina Y. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the court are three motions: (1) Plaintiffs' “Motion for Summary Judgment F.R.Civ.P. [sic] Rule 56(a);” (2) Defendant's “Motion for Summary Judgment;” and (3) Defendant's “Motion [] Asking for Dismissal of Plaintiffs [sic] Counsel.” ([“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment”] Doc. No. 112; [“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment”], Doc. No. 114; [“Defendant's Motion for Disqualification”], Doc. No. 123.) Plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant has responded in opposition and Plaintiffs have replied. ([“Plaintiffs' Memorandum”], Doc. No. 113; [“Defendant's Response”], Doc. No. 121; [“Plaintiffs' Reply”], Doc. No. 124.) Plaintiffs have also filed responses in opposition to both of Defendant's Motions. ([“Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment”], Doc. No. 120; [“Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Disqualification”], Doc. No. 125.) No further briefing has been filed as to the three pending Motions, and the time to do so has lapsed. D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) (“Nothing in this rule precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed.”). After considering the pleadings, the evidence submitted, and the applicable law all three Motions are DENIED.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Material Undisputed Facts^[1]

Plaintiff Rose Banks has been the Pastor, religious leader, and “guiding light” of the Plaintiff Colorado Springs Fellowship Church [the “Church”], a Christian church located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, since its founding in 1982. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 11; Doc. No. 70 at ¶ 11.) Her adult son, Plaintiff Lamont Banks, is the Executive Director of a nearby nonprofit organization, as well as a longstanding member of the Church. (Doc. No. 46 at ¶¶ 12-13, 25; Doc. No. 70 at ¶¶ 12-13, 25.) Defendant Terrelle Jackson [“Mr. Jackson, ” or “Defendant”] grew up attending the Church, until the age of sixteen or seventeen, when he apparently became disenchanted with Rose Bank's spiritual leadership, as well as with the Church's doctrinal teachings. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 30; Doc. No. 70 at ¶ 30; see Doc. No. 112-7.)

In 2017, or thereabouts, Mr. Jackson left Colorado and moved to Texas. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 22; Doc. No. 70 at ¶ 22; Doc. No. 112-4 at 4.) Shortly thereafter, around June 2018, Mr. Jackson allegedly began to post “defamatory, false and slanderous statements” about the three named Plaintiffs on his various social media accounts. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 2.) On approximately November 18, 2018, ^[2] Mr. Jackson posted a statement on Facebook, using his personal Facebook account, excerpted portions of which read:^[3]

This is who the church has leading this movement and preaching in her pulpit . . . when will she realize that her sons are CORRUPT . . . 2 of them ran women in the church Lamont Banks being one of them, not to mention he is almost a sex offender . . . and one was her assistant Pastor and then David Banks had a WHOLE new family that they found out about and tried to cover up . . . WHILE STILL MARRIED . . . all her sons are foul . . . this is stuff they KNEW about and covered up . . . here is a Video of the . . . of Lamont Banks . . . look who he follows . . . now with Instagram if you follow people, that is what will be on your feed . . . can you imagine how vile his feed is.

(Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 25 (emphasis in original); Doc. No. 112-4 at 4-5.)

On July 10, 2020, or thereabouts, Mr. Jackson posted another statement on Facebook, ^[4] using his personal Facebook account, excerpted portions of which read:

This is the ringleader herself, the wicked witch of the West Rose M Banks, [sic] She Pastors [sic] Colorado Springs Fellowship Church in Colorado, unfortunately it's the church I grew up in.

* * * I'm going live later tonight . . . The lies from Colorado Springs Fellowship Church stop Now, i [sic] haven't been to this cult since I was 16 or 17, HOW IN THE WORLD am I 29 and dealing with the harassment egged on by Rose Banks . . . they have been calling my phone non stop [sic] for the last hour or so. So let's go ahead and pull this cover!!!

(Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 30 (emphasis in original); Doc. No. 112-7 at 6.) In the social media posting, Mr. Jackson also referred to Church's parishioners as a “crazy bunch of people” who were “brainwashed.” (Id.)

That same day, July 10, 2020, Mr. Jackson posted a two hour and seven minute video on Facebook, using his personal Facebook account. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 31; Doc. No. 112-7 at 6.) In the video, Mr. Jackson made various statements about Rose Banks, ^[5] including accusations that she required parishioners to obtain her “permission” before making purchases; that she was “spreading lies;” that she told Mr. Jackson's parents to “put him out” on the street at age sixteen; and that she threatened to remove parishioners who did not “pledge” money to the Church. (Id.) Mr. Jackson also apparently referred to the Church again as a “cult, ” and characterized its members as “being under bondage.” (Id.) Mr. Jackson posted this “same exact” video to YouTube, on July 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 32; Doc. No. 70 at ¶ 32.)

At some other point in time, Mr. Jackson admittedly made “postings” about alleged “abuse” within the Church.^[6] (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 29; Doc. No. 112-7 at 4.) On another occasion, Mr. Jackson admittedly posted an image on Facebook, which depicted a photograph of Rose Banks next to a photograph of “the notorious Jim Jones, ”^[7] a man reportedly “responsible for the murder/suicide of 918 individuals including 304 children.” (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 27; Doc. No. 112-10 at 4; Doc. No. 112-13 at 4.) Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Jackson posted the image “with malice, ” in an attempt “to draw a clear analogy” between the two individuals depicted. (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 27.) Finally, Plaintiffs allege that, on a different occasion, Mr. Jackson “posted” an “email, ” in which he stated that Rose Banks engaged in “fraud, ” and “received funds” totaling “5 million dollars.”^[8] (Doc. No. 56 at ¶ 26.)

II. Procedural History

Following these events, on July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit against Mr. Jackson. (Doc. No. 1.) In their operative pleading, Plaintiff assert three causes of action: (1) “Defamation and Libel Per Se;” (2) “Infliction of Emotional Distress;” and (3) “Extreme and Outrageous Conduct.” (Doc. No. 56 at 7-12 ¶¶ 37-66.) The first claim is asserted by all three named Plaintiffs; the remaining two claims are asserted by Rose Banks and Lamont Banks, only. (Id.) At the close of discovery, the Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on all three claims. (Doc. No. 112; Doc. No. 114.)

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

I. Legal Standard for Pro Se Defendant

Mr. Jackson is proceeding pro se. The court, therefore, “review[s] his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold[s] them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); accord Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). This rule applies to all proceedings involving a pro se litigant, including summary judgment proceedings. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991); see Overton v. United States, 925 F.2d 1282 (10th Cir. 1990) (liberally construing pro se pleadings in review of summary judgment). However, Mr. Jackson's pro se status does not vitiate his obligation to adhere to, and comply with, “the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992)); Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating that a pro se litigant must “comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure”). Nor does Defendant's pro se status entitle him to an application of different rules. Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 957 (10th Cir. 2002). Thus, while the court makes “some allowances” for Mr. Jackson's “failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence structure, or his unfamiliarity with the pleading requirements, ” the court will not “take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110) (alteration omitted).

II. The Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate 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); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of providing to the court the factual basis for its motion. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. “Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter.” Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325). The nonmoving party may not rest solely on the allegations in the pleadings, but instead, must designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

“A ‘judge's function' at summary judgment is not ‘to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for...