Fleming v. Gardner
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Before WATHEN; GLASSMAN |
| Citation | 658 A.2d 1074 |
| Parties | David Gordon FLEMING v. Craig T. GARDNER and Scott D. Gardner. |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1995 |
Page 1074
v.
Craig T. GARDNER and Scott D. Gardner.
Decided May 25, 1995.
Page 1075
David G. Fleming, Thomaston, pro se.
Charles Smith, Karen Lovell, Smith, Elliott, Smith & Garmey, Timothy S. Murphy, Gardner, Gardner & Murphy, Saco, for defendants.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.
GLASSMAN, Justice.
Craig T. Gardner and Scott D. Gardner appeal from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County, Crowley, J.) denying their motion for a summary judgment in their favor on David Fleming's complaint seeking damages from the Gardners for the severe emotional distress suffered by him proximately caused by their alleged negligent failure to provide him with proper legal representation. Because the record establishes that Fleming failed to generate any genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial of this case, we vacate the judgment and remand for the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the Gardners.
On October 20, 1993, Fleming, acting pro se, filed the present complaint against the Gardners seeking damages for the emotional distress caused by his incarceration as a proximate result of the alleged failure of the Gardners to properly represent him on certain criminal charges against him. By their answer, the Gardners denied the allegations in the complaint and moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for the failure of Fleming to state a claim for which relief could be granted and on the further ground that as court-appointed counsel they were immune from suit pursuant to the provisions of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118 (1980 & Supp.1994). While that motion was pending, Fleming filed a motion seeking a summary judgment in his favor. In support of his motion he filed, inter alia, certified copies of some of the proceedings on the criminal charges against him. The Gardners filed affidavits stating, inter alia, that it was after the Gardners had by court order been relieved as his counsel and other counsel had been appointed to represent him on the criminal charges, that Fleming had entered the guilty pleas to those charges resulting in his present incarceration. The motions were heard by the court on March 9, 1994. 1 The court denied Fleming's motion for a summary judgment in his favor and took the Gardners' motion to dismiss under advisement. On March 30, 1994, the court issued its order denying the Gardners' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, noting that:
Not reflected in the pleadings, and therefor not considered by the court at this time, Fleming withdrew his guilty plea and he entered a second guilty plea four months later while represented by new counsel.
....
Accepting a guilty plea requires the court to find that the criminal defendant is acting voluntarily and knowingly. M.R.Crim.P. 11(b)-(d). Rule 11(c)(2) specifically requires the court to find that the defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is waiving his right to a trial. While Fleming's second guilty plea may ultimately dispose of this action on factual grounds, this court cannot consider facts not contained within the pleadings on this motion to dismiss. Fleming, therefore, stands before the court for the purposes of this motion as if he were unjustly incarcerated as a result of the plea taken when defendants were acting as his court-appointed counsel.
The court further determined it was "not the appropriate forum to extend the application of the Tort Claims Act beyond its present
Page 1076
interpretation." From the judgment entered accordingly, the Gardners appeal.We have frequently stated that "when on a motion for dismissal matters outside the pleadings, such as affidavits, are presented to, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mooney v. Frazier, 35224.
...577 (Iowa 2003); Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 72 P.3d 911 (2003); Law v. Mayeux, 527 So.2d 37 (La.App.1988); Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074 (Me.1995); Donigan v. Finn, 95 Mich.App. 28, 290 N.W.2d 80 (1980); Smith v. Sneed, 638 So.2d 1252 (Miss.1994); Johnson v. Raban, 702 S.W.2d 134 (......
-
Sawyer v. Legislative Council, KEN CV-04-97
...of law for a defendant, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of her cause of action. See Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995). 1. Is This a Non-Justiciable Dispute? In their brief, the Defendants first assert that the present action, which is essentia......
-
Klinges v. Pomerleau, 2:19-cv-00418-NT
...appropriate when any jury verdict for the plaintiff would be based on conjecture or speculation.' ” Id. ¶ 13 (quoting Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995)). Defendant B&P asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on Teresa's attorney malpractice claim because she has fai......
-
Reid v. Reid, KEN CV-04-148
...of law for a defendant, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of her cause of action. See Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995). In its motion, Waste Management first argues that it owed no duty to the Plaintiff with regard to the placement of the dumps......
-
Mooney v. Frazier
...577 (Iowa 2003); Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 72 P.3d 911 (2003); Law v. Mayeux, 527 So.2d 37 (La.App.1988); Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074 (Me.1995); Donigan v. Finn, 95 Mich.App. 28, 290 N.W.2d 80 (1980); Smith v. Sneed, 638 So.2d 1252 (Miss.1994); Johnson v. Raban, 702 S.W.2d 134 (......
-
Sawyer v. Legislative Council, KEN CV-04-97
...of law for a defendant, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for each element of her cause of action. See Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995). 1. Is This a Non-Justiciable Dispute? In their brief, the Defendants first assert that the present action, which is essentia......
-
Reid v. Reid, KEN CV-04-148
...... law for a defendant, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie. case for each element of her cause of action. See Fleming. v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995). . . In its. motion, Waste Management first argues that it owed no ......
-
Klinges v. Pomerleau
...appropriate when any jury verdict for the plaintiff would be based on conjecture or speculation.' ” Id. ¶ 13 (quoting Fleming v. Gardner, 658 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Me. 1995)). Defendant B&P asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on Teresa's attorney malpractice claim because she has fai......