Dingle v. Maris

• Decision Date: 07 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 5:20-CV-541-D,5:20-CV-541-D
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: RANDY DINGLE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE AMANDA L. MARIS, et al., Defendants.

RANDY DINGLE, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE AMANDA L. MARIS, et al., Defendants.

No. 5:20-CV-541-D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

June 7, 2021

ORDER

On October 9, 2020, Randy Dingle ("Dingle" or "plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against a Durham County District Judge (Maris) and staff member (Flemmings); three attorneys (Dennis, Edwards, and Peterkin); the Durham County Sheriff (Birkhead) and two of his civil division officers (Whitaker and Fosters); and two of Dingle's family members (his ex-wife Patricia Dingle and their daughter Natashia Dingle). See Compl. [D.E. 1]. Seven of these defendants move to dismiss the complaint [D.E. 9, 16, 19, 30]. The court notified Dingle about the motions to dismiss and the consequences of failing to respond [D.E. 11, 18, 23, 33]. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). Dingle responded in opposition to defendants' motions [D.E. 28, 38] and seeks "clarification" of a court order, which the clerk filed as amotion [D.E. 40]. Edwards and Peterkin move for sanctions [D.E. 21, 26]. As explained below, the court grants defendants' motions to dismiss and denies the remaining motions.

I.

Dingle's complaint concerns his divorce from defendant Patricia Dingle and their bankruptcy case, and problems that he has had with the civil division of the Durham County Sheriff's Department. See Compl. at 4-6. Due to the bankruptcy proceedings, Dingle's lost his home and "[m]oney that was in my house[,]" a retirement savings account, an inheritance, and unspecified property. Id. at 6. Dingle alleges that unspecified defendants filed "fraudulent documents" in the bankruptcy proceedings, committed "[f]orgery and using my name and social security number[,]" defamed his character, and "[c]onceal[ed] . . . evidence of fraud" concerning his children, Patricia Dingle and her sister. Id. at 6-7.

Defendant Maris "was the judge during an absolute divorce hearing" in which Dingle "was contesting the divorce, so that [he] could recoup . . . property that was stolen by [Patricia] Dingle and the children." Id. at 4. Dingle alleges that Maris "was playing the judge, attorney, and the jury from the bench . . . . [and] failed to do her fiduciary duty as an administrator and not a Judge." Id. Dingle also alleges that Maris "knowingly and willfully showed bias and prejudice" against him by denying Dingle's request to speak on his own behalf, and issuing "a seal divo[r]ce decree with someone else's name" and an unclear signature, which "can not be a legal and binding document or contract." Id.

Dingle alleges that defendant Flemmings, the family court coordinator, "violated her code of ethics and her oath also, by receiving and filing fraudulent documents that she received from attorney India Dennis." Id. at 5. When Dingle "went to the Family Court to have my documents of contestment be added to the [court case] file[,]" Flemmings "[a]t first . . . did not want to take my documents, she was too busy trying to inform me about her personal life." Id.

Defendant Dennis represented Patricia Dingle in the divorce proceedings. See id. at 4-5. According to Dingle, Dennis advised Patricia Dingle to seek an absolute divorce and presented false documents to the family court and relied on hearsay during the hearing. See id. at 4. Dingle alleges that Dennis "is a part of a secret society of arcane, by guaranteeing the keeping of ordinary peoplein political, economic and spiritual bon[d]age." Id. at 4-5.

"During the absolute divorce Patricia Dingle brought up our bankruptcy case. She was the one who initiated the bankruptcy with the help of defendants Edwards and Peterkin. Id. at 6. Defendant "Natashia Dingle even made an appearance in the Family court with her mama (Mrs. Dingle)." Id. at 5.

Dingle also describes problems with the civil division of the Durham County Sheriff's Department Defendant "Sheriff Clarence Birkhead is the CEO . . . for The Durham County Sheriff Department. He is responsible for his office, officers, and all other departments in his section." Id. at 6. Dingle alleges that on an unspecified date, he "went to the Durham County Sheriff Department Civil Division to have them serve some summons for a case . . . in the United States Federal Courts in Raleigh." Id. at 5. Dingle presented the sealed envelopes with the complaints and summonses to a cashier, who "open[ed] them . . . against the privacy act." Id.

Defendant Fosters "was the deputy doing the services of my summons." Id. Fosters was able to serve two people (Patricia Dingle and her sister), but "wrote and said he could not find Natashia Dingle, (who lives with her mother, Patricia Ellen Watson Dingle) or" two of Dingle's other children, even though "Patricia Ellen Watson Dingle, their mother knew their whereabouts." Id. at 5-6. Fosters "later sent back the summons, but not my Federal Complaint Packets for Natashia Dingle, Alonzo Dingle, and Danica Dingle[.]" Id. at 6.

Dingle contends that because the cashier opened his sealed service packets, "all my federal documents (complaint) were opened by the cashier and read by the Judge, Dennis, Sheriff Birkland, Whitaker, and Fosters and other individuals in the Durham County Sheriff Department[]" in "a violation of their fiduciary duties and their oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States ofAmerica and the North Carolina Constitution, his ethics, code of conduct, morals, and principles." Id. at 5-6. Dingle believes that Birkhead "decided to help Patricia Dingle (which is not her lawfully name) in her divorce, based on reading the Federal complaint and summon packet, which shows all the other sheriffs that are involved. All of the sheriffs in North Carolina are in a fraternity order which falls under the title of 'The Good Old Boys System'." Id. at 6.

Dingle "contacted [defendant] Capt. Whitaker by phone and informed him of how unprofessional the cashiers were. Whitaker even offered to refund my funds due to the mistakes of the cashier in his department." Id. at 5. Dingle "later made a complaint to the Durham County Sheriff Department, which included Captain Whitaker's name. As of this day it has yet to be answered." Id. at 5-6. However, Fosters called Dingle after Dingle filed the complaint and said "(and I quote) 'you better stop what you are doing.[']" Id. at 6.

Dingle asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and various federal criminal statutes. See id. at 3-4, 7; [D.E. 14]. Dingle seeks "[t]wenty million dollars per occurrence, per office, official, agent or representative." Compl. at 2.

II.

A.

On February 12, 2021, the court granted Maris and Flemmings's motion to deem their motion to dismiss timely filed. See [D.E. 32, 39]. Dingle "would like to have more clarification of" that order, which the clerk filed as a motion. See [D.E. 40].

"When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). In analyzing a motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint, the court considers such factors as prejudice to the plaintiff, thelength of the proposed delay, "its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant had acted in good faith." Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

Defendants did not act in bad faith, and their slight delay in filing a motion to dismiss did not not prejudice Dingle. Notably, Dingle sought and obtained an extension of time to respond to defendants' motions. See [D.E. 24, 25]. Thus, to the extent Dingle seeks reconsideration of the order, the court denies the motion as meritless.

B.¹

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) tests subject-matter jurisdiction, which is the court's "statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (emphasis omitted); see Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 453 (4th Cir. 2012); Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2005). A federal court "must determine that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case before it can pass on the merits of that case." Constantine, 411 F.3d at 479-80. "[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence." Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 104; see Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). In considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. See, e.g., Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's legal and factual sufficiency. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-63 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation omitted); see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302. In considering the motion, the court must construe the facts and reasonable inferences "in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving party]." Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted); see Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). A court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions, "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano, ...