Chorazghiazad v. Smith

Decision Date11 May 2023
Docket Number3:22-cv-1048
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee




By Order entered January 3, 2023 (Docket Entry No. 3), the Court referred this pro se action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.

Pending before the Court are:

1) the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 33) of Defendants Robert Bryant, Steve Gatlin, Randall Hutto, Michael Jennings, Barry Tatum, Mike Warren, and the Wilson County Sheriff's Department;

2) the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 36) of Defendants Dan Alexander, Erin White, Mohammad Naser Chorazghiazad, Maryam Sangchin, Javid Chorazghiazad, and Mohammad Touloeisani;

3) the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 40) of Defendants Charles Smith, Clara Byrd, and Michael Collins; and, 4) the motion for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 38) of Defendants Dan Alexander, Erin White, Mohammad Naser Chorazghiazad, Maryam Sangchin, Javid Chorazghiazad, and Mohammad Touloeisani.

For the reasons set out below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that (1) the motions to dismiss be granted as to all Defendants, except for the motion to dismiss as it pertains to Defendants Steve Gatlin and Mike Warren, which should be denied, and (2) the motions for sanctions be denied.


Mohammad Chorazghiazad (Plaintiff) is a resident of Lebanon, Tennessee. On December 22, 2022, he filed this pro se lawsuit against 16 Defendants, seeking several million dollars in relief. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint that names the same Defendants but includes factual allegations that were absent from the original complaint. See Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 5). Named as Defendants are: 1) Chancery Court Judge C.K. Smith (“Smith”); 2) General Sessions Judge Barry Tatum (“Tatum”); 3) Circuit Court Judge Michael Collins (“Collins”); 4) Circuit Court Judge Clara Byrd (“Byrd); 5) former state judge Dan Alexander (“Alexander”); 6) attorney Erin Alexander White (“White”); 7) Mohammad Naser Chorazghiazad (Naser Chorazghiazad); 8) Maryam Sangchin (“Sangchin”), the wife of Naser Chorazghiazad; 9) Javid Chorazghiazad (J. Chorazghiazad), the son of Naser Chorazghiazad; 10) Shawn Touloeisani (“Touloeisani”); 11) the Wilson County Sheriff's Department (“Sheriff's Department”); 12) Wilson County Sheriff Robert Bryant (“Bryant”); 13) Wilson County Police Lieutenant Steve Gatlin (“Gatlin”); 14) Wilson County Police Corporal Mike Warren (“Warren”); 15) Wilson County Mayor Randall Hutto (“Hutto”); and, 16) Wilson County Attorney Michael Jennings (“Jennings”). Id.

Plaintiff does not set out a distinct and clear statement of factual allegations in his amended complaint but intersperses his factual allegations within his listing of the defendants. As gleaned from these factual allegations, Plaintiff's lawsuit appears to revolve around two issues.

The first issue involves Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with several state court lawsuits in which he was a party between 2016 and 2020. He alleges that the respective judges that he names as defendants failed to properly adjudicate the state court lawsuits, showed favoritism toward the opposing parties, denied due process, and violated court rules, ethical rules, and Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Alexander is an attorney who ignored conflicts of interest and ethical rules by representing a party in one or more of the lawsuits despite the fact that he had previously represented Plaintiff in other legal matters. He contends that Defendant White is also an attorney who violated his constitutional rights by lying and acting unethically in one of the lawsuits. Plaintiff alleges that Naser Chorazghiazad wronged him in some manner regarding certain property transactions and that Defendant Alexander wrongfully represented him despite the conflict of interest. Plaintiff finally alleges that Defendants, Sangchin, J. Chorazghiazad, and Sani each lied and defamed him when they testified in one or more of the state court cases.

The second issue involves an incident that occurred on February 9, 2022, when Defendants Gatlin and Warren are alleged to have broken a fence that surrounds Plaintiff's property to enter the property to serve Plaintiff with a summons. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bryant and Hutto (the sheriff and mayor, respectively), the Sheriff's Department, and Jennings all bear some responsibility for the actions of the two officers.

As the statement of his claim, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and denied the plaintiff equal protection of the law and due process of law. The Defendants have sought to block access to the Courts. The Defendants trespassed onto plaintiff's property to serve an order of protections.” See Amended Complaint at 21. Plaintiff further asserts in his jurisdictional statement that he brings his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because Defendants have committed crimes against him. Id. at 17. Plaintiff also asserts diversity of citizenship as a basis for jurisdiction. Id.[1]


In lieu of answers, Defendants have filed the pending motions to dismiss, raising various arguments for dismissal. By their motion, the Wilson County Defendants - Wilson County Sheriff's Department, Judge Tatum, Sheriff Bryant, Mayor Hutto, Jennings, Lt. Gatlin, and Cpl. Warren - argue that: 1) Plaintiff's claim against Judge Tatum is barred by both the statute of limitations and the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity; 2) Plaintiff's claim against the Sheriff's Department must be dismissed because the Sheriff's Department is not an entity that can be sued; 3) Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would support a claim of personal liability against Defendants Bryant, Hutto, or Jennings; and, 4) Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Gatlin and Warren fail to support a claim that they violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. See Wilson County Defendants' Memorandum in Support (Docket Entry No. 34). Plaintiff opposes this motion. See Docket Entry No. 35.

By their motion, the Individual Defendants - Alexander, White, Naser Chorazghiazad, Sangchin, J. Chorazghiazad, and Touloeisani - argue that: 1) Plaintiff's claim are barred by the statute of limitations; 2) Plaintiff fails to set forth allegations that Defendants acted under color of state law, as required for a claim brought under Section 1983; 3) Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata; 4) Plaintiff's claims of professional misconduct against Defendants Alexander and White are not actionable under Section 1983; and, 5) Plaintiff failed to properly serve process upon Defendants. See Individual Defendants' Memorandum in Support (Docket Entry No. 37). Plaintiff opposes this motion. See Docket Entry No. 46.

By their motion, the Judicial Defendants - Judges Smith, Collins, and Byrd - argue that: 1) they have not been properly served with process; 2) Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations; 3) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars any claims that amount to a review of the state court judgments; 4) Plaintiff's claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; 5) Plaintiff's claims are barred by absolute judicial immunity; and, 6) Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting a claim of denial of access to the courts. See Judicial Defendants' Memorandum in Support (Docket Entry No. 41). The Judicial Defendants further argue that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims. Id. Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to this motion.


Defendants' motions are reviewed under the standard that the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations contained in the amended complaint, must resolve all doubts in Plaintiff's favor, and must construe the amended complaint liberally in favor of the pro se Plaintiff. See Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006); Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999); Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 11-12 (6th Cir. 1987). However, Plaintiff's factual allegations must be enough to show a plausible right to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-61 (2007). The amended complaint must contain either direct or inferential factual allegations that are sufficient to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. Id.; Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1988). To state a plausible claim for relief, the alleged facts must provide “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Mik v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 743 F.3d 149, 157 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). While the Court must liberally construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff, see Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999), the Court is not required to supply or assume facts that are not pled or create claims for a party that are not pled. See Bell v. Tennessee, 2012 WL 996560, *9 (E.D. Tenn. March 22, 2012) (quoting Thompson v. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co., 208 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2000)).


Before addressing the specific motions to dismiss, the Court notes that Plaintiff's lawsuit has significant...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT