McCants ex rel. Nix v. United States

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: LILES C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: McCants ex rel. Nix v. United States, 598 F.Supp.3d 1342 (N.D. Ala. 2022)
• Decision Date: 04 April 2022
• Docket Number: Case No.: 5:21-cv-01327-LCB
• Parties: Cheryl MCCANTS, ON BEHALF OF the ESTATE OF Pettis NIX in her capacity as Personal Representative/Executor of the Estate of Pettis Nix, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

598 F.Supp.3d 1342

Cheryl MCCANTS, ON BEHALF OF the ESTATE OF Pettis NIX in her capacity as Personal Representative/Executor of the Estate of Pettis Nix, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Case No.: 5:21-cv-01327-LCB

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

Signed April 4, 2022

Cheryl McCants, Huntsville, AL, Pro Se.

Jack B. Hood, US Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

LILES C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 7). For the reasons that follow, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED .

BACKGROUND

This case arises from the death of Pettis Nix. Mr. Nix died on July 26, 2014, after an extended period of treatment and care with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(Doc. 1 at 5-18). In his will, Mr. Nix appointed Plaintiff Cheryl McCants as the executor of his estate. (Doc. 7-1 at 8). On October 4, 2021, Ms. McCants filed this case pro se under the Federal Torts Claim Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 - 2680, the Alabama Medical Liability Act, Ala. Code §§ 6-5-548, 6-5-549, 6-5-549.1, and the Alabama Wrongful Death Statute, Ala. Code § 6-5-410, alleging that the VA and several of its physicians negligently caused Mr. Nix's death. (Doc. 1). Ms. McCants purported to sue the VA "in her capacity as the duly appointed personal representative and executor of the Estate of Pettis Nix, on behalf of the estate of Pettis D. Nix". (Doc. 1 at 1). Additionally, in the case caption, Ms. McCants referred to herself as "Cheryl McCants, on behalf of the ESTATE OF PETTIS NIX in her capacity as Personal Representative/Executor of the Estate of Pettis Nix". Id. Ms. McCants also signed her complaint as "Cheryl McCants, Executor of the Estate of Pettis Nix". Id. at 26.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain "a short and plaint statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must include enough facts to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Pleadings that contain nothing more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" do not meet Rule 8 ’s standards; nor do pleadings suffice that are based merely upon "labels and conclusions" or "naked assertion[s]" without supporting factual allegations. Id. at 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts view the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Watts v. Fla. International Univ. , 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007).

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although "[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ " the complaint must demonstrate "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. A plausible claim for relief requires "enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" to support the claim. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must "1) eliminate any allegations in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions; and 2) where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’ " Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, PLC , 413 Fed. App'x. 136, 138 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam ) (quoting Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp. , 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2011) ). That task is context specific, and, to survive the motion, the allegations must permit the court based on its "judicial experience and common sense ... to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. If the court determines that well-pleaded facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim that is plausible on its face, the claims must be dismissed. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

DISCUSSION

The issue first before the Court centers on Ms. McCants's status as a pro se litigant. In short, the parties dispute whether Ms. McCants can bring her particular claims as a pro se plaintiff. The government argues that Ms. McCants proceeds on behalf of Mr. Nix's estate, so she is not pursuing her individual claims. Ms. McCants asserts that her claims are not on the estate's behalf, so the claims do not bar her from proceeding pro se. The arguments implicate the most basic theories of the right to litigate pro se and raise important questions about the limits of a non-attorney to pursue claims in a court of law.

In federal courts, some parties have the right to pursue their claims without counsel. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that "[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The Northern District of Alabama, in turn, promulgated a local rule governing pro se litigants. Local Rule 83.1(d) provides that "[i]n all cases filed in or removed to this court, a party may appear ... if an individual, by himself or herself pro se. "

Alabama state law similarly grants certain parties the right to pursue their claims pro se. For instance, the Alabama Constitution grants individuals the right to proceed in Alabama courts with or without counsel. Ala. Const. Art. I, § 10. ("That no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this state, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party."). These rules are innocuous enough. They provide that an individual may pursue their own claims—or defend against claims brought against them—without counsel.

But the right to proceed pro se is not limitless. An individual proceeding pro se is not an attorney. In general, courts restrict non-attorneys from representing the interests or rights of other parties. An example from this Circuit is Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 2008). There, the plaintiff attempted to bring a qui tam action¹ under the Federal Claims Act pro se. The court explained that a qui tam suit under the FCA is not personal but is in the federal government's interests. Ultimately, the court held that the right to proceed pro se under § 1654 does not extend to actions representing the rights of others.

The court's holding in Timson is in line with the consensus among the Circuits. See, e.g., Murray ex rel. Estate of Purnell v. City of Philadelphia , 901 F.3d 169, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2018) ; Guest v. Hansen , 603 F.3d 15, 20-21 (2d Cir. 2010) ; Oxendine v. Williams , 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) ; United States v. Onan , 190 F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951).

While surveying the law of the Circuits, however, one notable exception relevant to this case emerges. When a party proceeds on an estate's behalf, and is that estate's only beneficiary, courts allow them to proceed pro se despite their legal status as a representative for the interests of another. For example, in Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dept. , 819 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2016), a mother attempted to proceed pro se on behalf of her son's estate for a Texas wrongful death claim. The Fifth Circuit held that an estate's representative can proceed pro se if they are the estate's sole beneficiary. Id. at 210-11. The logic is easy enough to follow. Although proceeding on another party's behalf, the actual benefits will flow solely to the representative, so the representative is in effect representing exclusively their own interests.

Conversely, when an estate has multiple beneficiaries, the representative cannot proceed pro se. In Jones ex rel. Jones v. Correctional Medical Servs., Inc. , an administrator of an estate attempted to proceed pro se. 401 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit held that a pro se party cannot represent an estate with multiple beneficiaries. Id. at 952. The court reasoned that an opposite conclusion would allow a pro se party to represent the interests of multiple parties.

This federal treatment of estate representatives is consistent with Alabama state law. In Ex parte Ghafary , the Alabama Supreme Court held that the state's pro se code section "prohibits a nonattorney executor or personal representative from representing an estate before a court of law. Thus, the complaint filed by [the] executrix was a nullity ...." 738 So. 2d 778, 781 (Ala. 1998). To sum it up, when an individual brings a claim that benefits only themselves, they may proceed pro se. When a claim will necessarily benefit a class of other parties, however, the individual litigates the rights and interests of others and cannot proceed pro se.

In this case, the government argues that Ms. McCants exceeds the limits of proceeding pro se because her claim is on Mr. Nix's estate's behalf, and she is not the estate's sole beneficiary. (Doc. 7 at 8-13). Ms. McCants responds that Alabama law makes clear that a wrongful death action is not brought on a decedent estate's behalf. (Doc. 10 at 2-8). The government does not meaningfully address Ms. McCants's argument in its reply. Rather, the government focuses on the form of Ms. McCants's complaint, highlighting the case caption and Ms. McCants's signature. (Doc. 12 at 3).

But the government's focus on the complaint's form is misplaced. Ms. McCants, despite...