Millsaps v. McKee
| Decision Date | 09 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-CV-2493 JCH |
| Parties | WILLIAM M. MILLSAPS, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA MULLEN MCKEE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendant McKee and Defendant State of Missouri to Dismiss Parties (ECF No. 5); the Motion of Defendant The Right Solution, Inc., to Dismiss Party (ECF No. 8); and the Motion of Defendant Millsaps to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter and for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 11). Defendants McKee and the State filed their motion on September 26, 2019. Defendant The Right Solution, Inc. ("Right Solution"), and Defendant Millsaps filed their motions on September 27, 2019. On October 30, 2019 the Court sent a letter to Plaintiff Millsaps ordering him to respond to the Motions no later than November 20, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded. The Court will take up the motions.
Pro Se Plaintiff's complaint arises predominately out of events associated with divorce proceedings in the St. Louis County Case No. 16SL-DR06772 between Plaintiff and Defendant Millsaps; specifically, the division of the property and child support award in that case. Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendant Right Solution for negligence due to counseling services Defendant Right Solutions provided during the divorce case; declaratory relief that under MRS §451.010 Plaintiff should be entitled to a new proceeding for an annulment if evidence of fraud is discovered following the original proceeding; declaratory judgement against the State of Missouri that Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated by the application of Missouri State Statutes and that the Statutes are facially unconstitutional; and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff brings the following Counts:
Defendants challenge the Complaint on multiple grounds including subject matter jurisdiction, res judicata, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides for a motion to dismiss based on the "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must show that "'the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). See also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to defeat a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The pleading standard of rule 8 "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more thanunadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Further, in regard to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, the Supreme Court holds:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, [citations omitted] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed.2d 209 (1986) (). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004).
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir. 2009)(en banc)("[A] plaintiff 'must assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has the right he claims..., rather than facts that are merely consistent with such a right.'")(quoting Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiative, 509 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2007)).
Additionally, "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (citation omitted). "The issue is not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support [his or her] claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (abrogated on other grounds, Horlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims lack subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Domestic Relations Exception. (ECF No. 12, 6 - 9; ECF No. 9, 5 - 6; ECF No. 6, at 4, 6 - 7). Defendant Millsaps specifically argues that Counts III, IV and V seek to collaterally attack the divorce judgement and asks this Court to act as an appellate court andreview the rulings on state domestic relations. The Court agrees. Although the Plaintiff discusses his claims in constitutional terms, the Plaintiff's claims seek review of the property division put in place by the state court divorce judgement.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that "a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgements of a state court in judicial proceedings." D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Skit Intern., Ltd. v. DAC Technologies of Arkansas, Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2007). Even if a state court judgement is incorrect, "an effective and conclusive adjudication" is only open to reversal "in an appropriate and timely appellate proceeding." Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). The Court applies the Rooker-Feldman doctrine when the alleged federal claims are "inextricably intertwined with a state court judgement." In re Goetzman, 91 F.3d 1173, 1177 (8th Cir. 1996)(citing Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 296 (8th Cir. 1990). Federal Claims are "inextricably intertwined" when "the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongfully decided the issues before it." Id. Here, Plaintiff will only succeed on his claims in Counts III-V if the Court were to determine that the state court impermissibly distributed the property and child support award between Plaintiff and Defendant Millsaps. To do so would require this Court to determine that the state court acted incorrectly. Therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies in this case.
Even if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply in this case, Plaintiff's claims are inappropriate for review by the federal district court because they fall into the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. The issues raised in this case fall squarely into the domestic relations exception. Under the domestic relations exception, federal courts are prohibited fromexercising jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody, including the distribution of marital property. Wallace v. Wallace, 736 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 2013); Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859,861 (8th Cir. 1994). For the above stated reasons, the Court declines to exert subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims in Counts III - V.
Defendant State of Missouri, Defendant McKee, and Defendant Millsaps raised arguments under the principles of res judicata and judicial immunity regarding Counts III - V. The Court declines to address these arguments as Counts III - V are dismissed on other grounds. However, Defendants raise issues regarding diversity jurisdiction in this case which apply to the remaining claims.
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to plead information necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1332 requires the Plaintiff to meet the amount in controversy requirement. When jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the pleadings must establish the citizenship of the parties. Barclay Square Properties v. Midwest Sav. And Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis, 893 F.2d 968, (8th Cir. 1990). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, for diversity purposes the amount in controversy must "exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive and costs, and is between citizens of different states." 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). Plaintiff has not pled that the citizenship of the parties is diverse. Rather, Plaintiff alleges there is diverse residency. Plaintiff has also failed to allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. To the extent Plaintiff's remaining claims are not dismissed, the Plaintiff will be granted leave to more specifically allege facts so that the Court may determine if diversity jurisdiction is appropriate in this case.
Count I and Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint allege negligence and medical malpractice against Defendant Right Solution on the theory that Defendant Right Solution failed to diagnose the minor children with "parental alienation." Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the forum's statute of limitations. Columbia Petrol., Inc. v. Waddell, 680 F. Supp. 1348, 1350 (W.D. Mo. 1987). In Missouri the statute of limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial