Hawkins v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 16 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-13323 |
| Parties | GERALYN HAWKINS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. SHELLY SANDERS, ET AL., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
SECTION “E” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants', Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union, Heather Rodgers, Shelly Sanders and Gerry Kish Motion to Dismiss.[1] Plaintiffs oppose the motion,[2] and Defendants have filed a reply.[3] Having reviewed the pleadings and the case law, the Court rules as follows.
Plaintiffs Geralyn Hawkins, Nichole Thompson, and Chad Lightfoot (sometimes referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs”) sue numerous defendants, captioning their complaint as a “Civil Rights Complaint 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; 1985; and 1986.” Plaintiffs' claims stem from a pending criminal proceeding against Lightfoot for perjury, RICO theft, and RICO identity fraud in Louisiana state criminal court.[5] Lightfoot has a criminal and civil history in Louisiana federal and state courts dating back to 1996.[6] Hawkins, Thompson, and Lightfoot obtained personal loans in 2010 from Defendant Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union (“the Union”).[7] To apply for the loans, Plaintiffs submitted personal and/or private information to the Union, such as their places of employment, social security numbers, and drivers' license information.[8] In 2012, the Union conducted an internal investigation of numerous loans when it became suspicious because many of the loan applicants had the same information, such as addresses or job information.[9] Plaintiffs' loans were among those investigated.[10]Defendants Shelly Sanders, Heather Rodgers, and Gerry Kish, employees of the Union, assisted with the investigation.[11] Ultimately, Louisiana authorities accused Plaintiffs of participating in an “auto loan shopping scam” and fraud against the Union, and Lightfoot was arrested on October 15, 2015 and later charged with one count of perjury, one count of RICO identity theft, and one count of fraud.[12]
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in October 2019.[13] Plaintiffs sue Defendants the Union, Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish for violating their constitutional rights by conducting the investigation of their personal information without their consent.[14] They also sue these Defendants for communicating these findings to District Attorney's Office (“DA”) and later complying with a subpoena from Orleans Parish Criminal Court that ordered the production of Plaintiffs' personal information.[15] They also accuse the Union, Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish of conspiring with the DA under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 to falsely accuse them of participating in the “auto loan shopping scam”[16] and to deny them equal protection and due process of law as well as failing to prevent such a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1986.[17]Plaintiffs further allege that Union, Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish committed fraud and defamation against Plaintiffs by turning over their internal investigation, which linked Plaintiffs to the commission of several crimes.[18] Plaintiffs arguably allege nebulous violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; various provisions of the Louisiana Constitution; the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1401 et seq.;[19] and La. Rev. Stat. §§ 6:333 and 9:3571. Finally, Plaintiffs ask this Court to charge Defendants with criminal violations of various Louisiana statutes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiffs also sue the City of New Orleans,[20] former District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, Jr. and Assistant District Attorney Andre Gaudin for fabricating evidence to support the criminal allegations against Plaintiffs and for bad faith prosecution.[21]Plaintiffs also sue former Orleans Parish Criminal Court Judge Franz Zibilich; Jan Schmidt and Dawn Plaisance, two court reporters; and the Rules of the Court Committee of Orleans Parish Criminal Court (“the Rules Committee”). Plaintiffs sue these four Defendants for failing to turn over a transcript of a hearing in violation of an order issued by Judge Arthur Hunter when Hunter was considering Lightfoot's motion to recuse Zibilich from his criminal case and for Zibilich's rulings against Lightfoot in that criminal action.[22]
Defendants the Union, Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish (“Defendants”) now move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against them under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).[23]
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claims.”[24] A motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction.[25]Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”[26] “Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be found in the complaint alone, the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts as evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of the disputed facts.”[27]“When, as here, grounds for dismissal may exist under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should, if necessary, dismiss only under the former without reaching the question of failure to state a claim.”[28]
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.[29] “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[30]“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[31] The court, however, does not accept as true legal conclusions or mere conclusory statements, and “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.”[32] “[T]hreadbare recitals of elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement” are not sufficient.[33]
In summary, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[34] “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show[n]'-that the pleader is entitled to relief.”[35] “Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint ‘on its face show[s] a bar to relief.'”[36]
In numerous paragraphs of the third amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “all named Defendants,” “all Defendants,” or “named Defendants” violated their constitutional or statutory rights.[37] Mere “conclusory allegations against [d]efendants as a group” that “fail[ ] to allege the personal involvement of any defendant” are insufficient to put Defendants on notice of their alleged wrongdoing.[38] A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant's liability for the misconduct alleged.”[39] When a number of defendants are named in a complaint, a plaintiff cannot refer to all defendants “who occupied different positions and presumably had distinct roles in the alleged misconduct” without specifying “which defendants engaged in what wrongful conduct.”[40] A complaint that contains “impermissibly vague group pleading” will be dismissed.[41]
Accordingly, the claims against “all named Defendants,” “all Defendants,” or “named Defendants,” including the Union, Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish as Defendants, are dismissed without prejudice for impermissible group pleading and failing to specify how the Union, Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish specifically violated Plaintiffs' rights.[42] However, when the Plaintiffs referenced any of these claims elsewhere in their third amended complaint specifically against the Defendants, these claims are addressed below.
Plaintiffs request the Court invoke its “pendent/supervisory jurisdiction” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to charge Defendants with criminal violations of various Louisiana statutes.[43] As the Court has stated before, this is beyond its authority and jurisdiction.[44] [45] “[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”[46]Because Plaintiffs lack standing to bring criminal charges against Defendants, these claims must be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs' remaining federal law claims against Defendants include alleged violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 for conspiring to deny them equal protection under the law, or to prevent a conspiracy to do so. Plaintiffs also claim the Union violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to properly discipline Sanders, Rodgers, and Kish for conspiring to violate Plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment righ...
To continue reading
Request your trial