Lewis-Davis v. Balt. Cnty. Pub. Sch. Infants
| Decision Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-20-0423 |
| Parties | RACQUEL LEWIS-DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS INFANTS & TODDLERS PROGRAM, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Raquel Lewis-Davis, the self-represented plaintiff, has sued multiple defendants, alleging a vast conspiracy to discriminate against her, harass her, violate her privacy, and generally inflict harm on her. In a rambling, 61-page "Amended Complaint of Harassment" (ECF 40), plaintiff has lodged claims based on her prior employment at the Baltimore County Public Schools Infants & Toddlers Program ("BCPS") and at the Community College of Baltimore County ("CCBC"). She has sued individuals associated with BCPS and CCBS, as well as her former husband, her own divorce attorney, and others.
In particular, she has sued her former employer, BCPS, as well as Paula Boykin, a supervisor at BCPS, and Sally Chapman, a "Program Specialist" at BCPS (collectively, the "BCPS Defendants"). In addition, she has sued Mildred C. Singleton, the Human Resources Director of CCBC, another former employer. And, she has sued Alexis Coates, who is identified as a private contractor; Reginald Giles, who may be a former boyfriend; Emmitt K. Davis, Jr., plaintiff's ex- husband, with whom she has a child; and Jeffrey Kreshtool, Esquire, plaintiff's former lawyer in divorce proceedings. ECF 40 at 1.1
The suit is titled "Amended Complaint of Harassment." ECF 40. It does not contain discrete counts. But, plaintiff appears to assert different claims against each of the defendants.2
As to the BCPS Defendants, plaintiff lists the following claims, id. at 1: "Hostile Work Environment, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, Conspiracy against Rights, Retaliation, Violation of Privacy, Wrongful Termination, and Perceived Disability." The tort claims include "sexual harassment" and a hodge-podge of claims based on federal criminal statutes as well as the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Id. at 13-14. In addition, plaintiff alleges "Conspiracy of Rights and Obstruction of Justice." Id. at 15. Plaintiff asserts that the "Harassment Claims" are based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 et seq. ECF 40 at 2. The Hostile Work Environment claim is lodged pursuant to Title VII, the ADA, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), asamended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. ECF 40 at 5. The Retaliation claim is predicated on Title VII, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. ECF 40 at 7. And, the "Wrongful Termination" is brought "under VII." Id. at 16.
As to Coates, plaintiff alleges "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Cyberbullying, Violation of Privacy, CFAA - Computer Fraud Abuse Act - Tort (Includes Federal Computer Fraud Law for hacking); EPCA - Electronic Communication Privacy Act, Abuse of Process and Fraud, Interstate Communication." Id. at 34.
With respect to Singleton, plaintiff lists the following claims: "Conspiracy Against Rights, Religious Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Harassment, Constructive Discharge (Retaliation), Defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Cyberbullying, Violation of Privacy, CFAA - Computer Fraud Abuse Act - Tort (Includes Federal Computer Fraud Law for hacking); EPCA - Electronic Communication Privacy Act, Interstate Harassment, and Abuse of Process and Fraud." Id. at 39. Further, she contends that her claims are lodged pursuant to Title VII; the ADA; and the ADEA. Id. at 44.
As to Davis, plaintiff asserts "Violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Civil Rights Conspiracy Statute - Federal Offense; Abuse of Process[;] Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Tort[;] Invasion of Privacy Tort; Defamation of Character; Computer Fraud; Spoliation of Evidence; Deliberate Spread of Virus[;] Identity Theft." Id. at 46.
Concerning Giles, plaintiff alleges "Violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Civil Rights Conspiracy Statute - Federal Offense; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Obstruction of Justice." Id. at 52.
As discussed, infra, plaintiff does not appear to include any specific claims as to Kreshtool.
Some of the defendants have moved to dismiss. In particular, Kreshtool has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF 45. The motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 45-1) (collectively, the "Kreshtool Motion") and several exhibits. Plaintiff opposes the Kreshtool Motion (ECF 51) and has submitted several exhibits. Kreshtool has replied. ECF 57. In addition, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Dismiss Defendant Jeffrey Kreshtool's Reply to Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to his Motion to Dismiss." ECF 66 ("Motion to Dismiss Kreshtool's Reply"). And, Kreshtool filed a response in opposition to plaintiff's "Motion to Dismiss Kreshtool's Reply." ECF 71.
Singleton has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF 46. The motion is supported by a memorandum. ECF 46-1 (collectively, the "Singleton Motion"). Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to the Singleton Motion and the time to do so has expired.
The BCPS Defendants have also moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, claiming failure to effect service or name the proper party, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5). ECF 55. The motion is supported by a memorandum. ECF 55-1 (collectively, the "BCPS Motion"). Plaintiff has replied to the BCPS Motion with a "Motion to Resubmit Service" (ECF 67) along with proposed summons forms as to three defendants. ECF 67-1.
Davis has moved to dismiss (ECF 64), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), supported by a memorandum. ECF 64-1 (collectively, the "Davis Motion"). Plaintiff opposes the Davis Motion. ECF 75. And, she filed a "Motion to Supplement the Amended Complaint for Defendant Emmitt K. Davis Jr." ECF 78 ("Motion to Supplement"). Davis has not responded to the Motion to Supplement and the time to do so has expired.
Plaintiff has also filed the following motions: "Motion for Open Status" (ECF 32); "Motion of Leave to Extend Time or to Amend Complaint" (ECF 53, "Motion to Amend"), along with a proposed Second Amended Complaint that totals 196 pages in length (ECF 70); "Motion to Request a Jury Trial" (ECF 54); "Motion for Default Judgment as to Reginald Giles" (ECF 60); "Motion to Reissue Summons on Alexis Coates" (ECF 61); and "Motion for Joinder" of Gloria's Place, the homeless shelter in Philadelphia where plaintiff previously resided (ECF 74).
Kreshtool and Singleton have moved to strike plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint. ECF 72 ("Kreshtool Motion to Strike"); ECF 73 ("Singleton Motion to Strike"). Plaintiff has not responded to either motion. See Docket. And, the time to do so has expired.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the motions to dismiss brought by Kreshtool, Singleton, and Davis (ECF 45; ECF 46; ECF 64). I shall also grant the motion to resubmit service as to the BCPS Defendants (ECF 67); the Motion to Amend (ECF 53; ECF 70) as to some of the defendants; and the Motion for a Jury Trial (ECF 54). I shall deny the remaining motions.
As noted, plaintiff alleges that there is a vast conspiracy and "harassment campaign" against her. ECF 40 at 1. The institutions and individuals involved in this conspiracy include two of plaintiff's former employers, CCBC and BCPS, and some of their employees, including Singleton from CCBC and Chapman and Boykin from BCPS; her ex-husband, Davis; her former lawyer, Kreshtool; a Philadelphia homeless shelter, Gloria's Place; a former boyfriend, Giles; anda computer engineer, Coates. Id. Plaintiff claims that the purpose of this alleged conspiracy is to discredit her by making her appear mentally ill so that her ex-husband will ultimately be awarded custody of their minor child. Id. And, she alleges that the harassment campaign "has been organized...to intimidate and dissuade" her "from bringing forth this claim which can prove that she was in fact discriminated against due to an alleged, perceived disability, that CCBC in fact made up[.]" Id. at 1-2.
According to plaintiff, the conspiracy against her began during her employment with CCBC. Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by CCBC from March 2014 until March 2016. ECF 40 at 1. During that time, Singleton was employed as CCBC's Human Resources Director.
Plaintiff contends that the harassment began at CCBC because plaintiff was "the wrong person hired." Id. at 39. Thereafter, she alleges that the staff at CCBC "hacked" her social media, "falsified emails," and "stalked" her by way of "espionage software." Id. at 2, 40, 43. Plaintiff allegedly filed an informal complaint with Singleton and subsequently experienced more harassment from her coworkers. Id. at 39. According to plaintiff, she was "constructively discharged" from her job at CCBC in March 2016. Id. at 40. Thereafter, Singleton allegedly "defam[ed]" and "blacklisted" plaintiff from obtaining other employment. Id. at 41.
After leaving CCBC, plaintiff worked for "Job Corps" from May 2016 to August 2016; "Antwerpen Hyundai of Clarksville" from September 2016 to February 2017; "Antwerpen Nissan of Owings Mills" from February 2017 to September 2017; and Victory Health Care Systems from September 2017 to October 2017. Id. at 18.
Plaintiff began working for BCPS in October 2017. Id. at 2. She alleges that the "harassment campaign" continued against her as soon as she began working for BCPS. Id. In sum, plaintiff claims that her supervisor, Boykin, "tried to force" her to see an appointed therapist; BCPSdid not issue plaintiff "all [the] tools needed...
To continue reading
Request your trial