Brunken v. Parish
| Decision Date | 22 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 8:22-CV-227 |
| Parties | MATTHEW BRUNKEN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PARISH, FAITH BASED SECURITY NETWORK, INC., LORI UNRUH, and DONALD HAWKINS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
MATTHEW BRUNKEN, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN PARISH, FAITH BASED SECURITY NETWORK, INC., LORI UNRUH, and DONALD HAWKINS, Defendants.
No. 8:22-CV-227
United States District Court, D. Nebraska
November 22, 2022
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT JOHN PARISH'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Matthew Brunken brought suit against defendants John Parish (Parish), Faith Based Security Network, Inc. (FBSN), Lori Unruh (Unruh), and Donald Hawkins (Hawkins), (collectively, Defendants). Filing 1-2 at 1. Brunken's Amended Complaint alleges 16 distinct “causes of action” against Defendants. Filing 1-2 at 8-18. Brunken initially brought suit in Nebraska state court, but Parish removed this case to federal court asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446. Filing 1 at 1.
This matter comes before the Court on Parish's Motion to Dismiss Brunken's Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Filing 8. Parish alternatively moves for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and asks this Court to strike pertinent portions of Brunken's Amended Complaint. Filing 8. Brunken asks this Court to deny Parish's Motion to Dismiss, or-in the alternative-grant him leave to amend. Filing 17 at 21. After considering the parties' submissions, relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants Parish's Motion to Dismiss in part. Brunken's claims under federal law (i.e., those made pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. and those made pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.) are dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
As a result, the Court no longer maintains jurisdiction to hear Brunken's remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Therefore, this case is remanded back to state court for resolution of the remaining claims.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background[1]
Parish claims in his brief that FBSN “is a non-profit public charity that works to assist faith-based organizations with security matters ranging from medical incidents, theft, cyberthreats, child protection, and mass shooting risks to bomb threats.” Filing 9 at 1. Brunken prefers to describe FBSN as a “domestic terrorist organization.” Filing 1-2 at 2. This action arises after Parish, in his capacity as the director of FBSN, created “a poster in cooperation with other members of FBSN.” Filing 1-2 at 2. According to Brunken, that “poster falsely accused [him] of numerous felonies and indicated that [he] was planning a mass attack on” faith-based organizations. Filing 1-2 at 2.
Specifically, Brunken's Amended Complaint alleges that sometime around May 2021, Parish created a publication titled “Notice of Interest” that was meant to look like a “wanted poster.” Filing 1-2 at 5. Brunken claims that this Notice of Interest was drafted in such a way as to purposefully “confuse readers into believing it came from a law enforcement organization and was privileged.” Filing 1-2 at 5. The Amended Complaint claims that this Notice of Interest falsely accused Brunken of the following: (a) that Brunken had two felony weapons convictions; (b) that
Brunken had violent tendencies; (c) that Brunken threatened and intimidated children including threatening and intimidating children to lie on Brunken's behalf; (d) that Brunken had committed fraud; (e) that Brunken had sexually assaulted children; (f) that Brunken had fraudulently used an alias; (g) that Brunken was “[s]ubject to a court order forbidding him from having contact with children;” and (h) that Brunken had been described by a “family member” as having been “a ‘troubled teen,' insinuating mental health problems and legal trouble as a teenager.” Filing 1-2 at 5-6. Brunken further claims that the Notice of Interest was “calculated to infer [sic] . . . that [Brunken] carries weapons with intent to commit mass injuries at churches.” Filing 1-2 at 6.
According to Brunken, the Notice of Interest was also crafted in such a way so as “to create the ‘feel' that [Brunken] was a registered sex offender.” Filing 1-2 at 6. He further claims that “Parish and other FBSN agents bragged in company emails about using the software Constant Contact to monitor how many ‘hundreds' of email targets opened and viewed the Notice of Interest.” Filing 1-2 at 6. The Amended Complaint goes on to state that at some unspecified time, Brunken “served Parish with a certified request for retraction specifically confronting Parish with the falsity of the allegations and demanding correction.” Filing 1-2 at 7. However, Brunken claims that “Parish and FBSN refused.” Filing 1-2 at 7.
The Amended Complaint also asserts several claims relating to and arising out of these and other similar accusations by FBSN against Brunken. See Filing 1-2 at 6-8. Specifically, Brunken alleges that Parish and FBSN “published defamatory statements” to certain Nebraska residents in Douglas County, Nebraska, and Lancaster County, Nebraska, “in a May 2021 email.” Filing 1-2 at 6. These allegedly defamatory statements included that: (a) Brunken targeted an Omaha church for sexual exploitation; (b) Brunken was “arrested for and convicted of two felony weapons charges”; (c) Brunken was “identified as a troubled teenager by a family member”; (d) Brunken
was “a public threat due to violent tendencies”; (e) Brunken “[s]exually assaulted children”: and (f) Brunken “[v]iolat[ed] an alleged probation or parole condition by committing fraud and being around youth.” Filing 1-2 at 6.
Brunken also alleges that the Notice of Interest was received by “the John Paul Newman Center.” Filing 1-2 at 7. Brunken claims he was invited to attend a welcome dinner for new students at the John Paul Newman Center that took place on August 24, 2021. Filing 1-2 at 8. When he arrived, however, an individual associated with the John Paul Newman Center “called 91-1” and informed law enforcement that Brunken “was armed and a fugitive from justice.” Filing 1-2 at 8. As a result, “police tackled and handcuffed Brunken in front of several-hundred [sic] peers.” Filing 1-2 at 8. Brunken claims that “the report was fabricated so that Brunken could be served a do not trespass letter” for the John Paul Newman Center. Filing 1-2 at 8. Brunken further claims that as a result of “FBSN's false and defamatory statements[,]” one company “declin[ed] its option to extend a business contract with” him, while another organization “adversely modified [his] employment contract” with him. Filing 1-2 at 8.
B. Procedural Background
Brunken initiated this action on May 19, 2022, by filing his original Complaint in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska. Filing 1-1 at 1. Brunken later filed an Amended Complaint in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, on June 21, 2022. Filing 1-2 at 22. This Amended Complaint is the operative Complaint at issue on Parish's Motion to Dismiss. See Filing 8 at 1.[2] On June 24, 2022, three days after Brunken filed his Amended Complaint in state court, Parish filed a Notice of Removal in this Court pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1441 and 1446. Filing
1 at 3-6. The sole basis Parish invoked for removing this action to federal court was federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Filing 1 at 3.
In his Notice of Removal, Parish stated that because Brunken's Amended Complaint included “claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (‘RICO') pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(d) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681[,] et seq.” this Court has original jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they arise under federal law. Filing 1 at 3-4. Parish therefore submitted that this Court likewise maintained jurisdiction over Brunken's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). Filing 1 at 4.[3]Parish did not claim that there was diversity jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See generally Filing 1 at 3-6. After this case was removed to federal court, Parish filed the present Motion to Dismiss on August 1, 2022. Filing 9.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Pro Se Considerations
Brunken has brought this action pro se. Filing 17 at 19.[4] “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally . . . they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stonev. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004); accordSandknop v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 932 F.3d 739, 741 (8th Cir 2019); see also Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989) (“Although we must liberally construe plaintiff's factual allegations . . . we will not supply additional facts, nor will we construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded”) (internal citation omitted).
When we say that a pro se complaint should be given liberal construction, we mean that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. That is quite different, however, from requiring the district court to assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint.
Stone, 364 F.3d at 915.
B. Rule 12(b)(6) Standards
Upon a defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “[c]onclusory...
To continue reading
Request your trial