Myles v. Georgia Bar
| Decision Date | 22 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-782-JWD-EWD |
| Parties | BRACEY MYLES v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA BAR, ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
BRACEY MYLES
v.
THE STATE OF GEORGIA BAR, ET AL.
Civil Action No. 20-782-JWD-EWD
United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
September 22, 2021
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days after being served with the attached report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set forth therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Complaint, filed by Bracey Myles (“Plaintiff”), who is representing himself.[1] Following a hearing held pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, [2] it is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim, as explained below.
I. Background
On November 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and First Amended Complaint against the State Bar of Georgia (“Georgia Bar”) and attorney Harry M. Daniels, Jr. (“Daniels”) (collectively, “Defendants”).[3] That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted.[4] On November 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants.[5]
A hearing was conducted on February 2, 2021 pursuant to Spears v. McCotter[6] (“Spears hearing”), to determine if any or all of Plaintiff's claims were frivolous and subject to dismissal.[7] At the Spears hearing, Plaintiff testified under oath and presented information regarding the basis for his claims. At the conclusion of the hearing, Plaintiff was advised that this Report would be issued with a recommendation to the district judge regarding Plaintiff's claims. It was also explained that Plaintiff would have a fourteen-day period to submit objections to the Report and that the assigned district judge would make the final decision and issue a Ruling as to whether Plaintiff's claims would be allowed to proceed.
II. Plaintiff's Claims
A. Against Daniels
Plaintiff's primary claim against Daniels is that Daniels committed legal malpractice, in connection with Daniels' representation of Plaintiff in a legal matter, involving an incident at Wal-Mart, which is the subject of another proceeding pending in this Court filed by Plaintiff and his fiancée, Alfreda Lang (“Lang”) (“the Wal-Mart suit”).[8] According to the Wal-Mart suit, on or about June 16, 2020, Plaintiff, Lang, and their infant son visited a Wal-Mart in Holton, Kansas, where they purchased groceries and then exited the store. When they reached their car, they were met by local law enforcement officers, who asked to see the receipt for their groceries. Lang gave the receipt to the officers, who informed them that Wal-Mart had reported a theft.[9] The officers detained Plaintiff, Lang and the infant, who was in a hot car for about twenty minutes, to conduct an investigation.[10]
Upon release by the officers, Plaintiff re-entered the store to lodge a complaint but was instructed by Wal-Mart employees, and ultimately by the officers, to leave the store. Plaintiff complied.[11] Plaintiff and Lang contend that they were the only African Americans in the store and were racially profiled in violation of federal civil rights laws when they were accused of theft.[12]
At some point in June 2020, Plaintiff retained Daniels, a Georgia-licensed attorney, to represent Plaintiff and Lang against Wal-Mart.[13] Plaintiff and Daniels corresponded from June 2020 until November 2020.[14] During that time, Plaintiff contends that “attorney [Daniels] is alleged to be involved in a multitude of legally prohibited personnel and/or criminal practices linking directly to client's receiving an unfavorable outcome, prolonging the financial hardships and suffering pertaining to the incident that takes place on June 16, 2020 in Holton Kansas.”[15] The following information is indicated from a review of the text messages, Amended Complaints, and Plaintiff's testimony: Daniels drafted a complaint on Plaintiff's behalf; Daniels sent settlement demands to Wal-Mart; Daniels told Plaintiff that Wal-Mart was amenable to engaging in a mediation in Kansas, which was scheduled to occur in September of 2020 but was canceled by Wal-Mart and re-scheduled for early November, 2020; a mediation Settlement Agreement was signed by one party, indicating that the mediation occurred in early November, which contemplated a settlement in a particular amount (although it is unclear if the parties actually settled); thereafter, Daniels advised Plaintiff that he would not get a fair trial, the mediation cost was covered, and apparently, that [Wal-Mart] “wont go above
that;” and finally, when Plaintiff asked, Daniels informed Plaintiff that the complaint Daniels drafted had never been filed.[16]
Plaintiff contends that Daniels' malpractice arose when Daniels mispresented to Plaintiff that a lawsuit had been filed, [17] and when Daniels allegedly coerced Plaintiff into signing an unidentified document.[18] Plaintiff also generally alleges Daniels engaged in a breach of fiduciary duty, lack of due diligence, dishonesty, billing fraud, and a conflict of interest, as Daniels was “secretly working on behalf of the opposition….” and “received a benefit from the opposing counsel for turning [Plaintiff] in.”[19] Plaintiff also alleges Daniels committed violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and committed state law torts such as intentional fraud and emotional distress.[20]
B. Against the Georgia Bar
Plaintiff's Amended Complaints do not expressly allege the nature of Plaintiff's claims against the Georgia Bar other than to vaguely allege “personal injury;”[21] however, at the Spears hearing, Plaintiff clarified that his claim against the Georgia Bar is that it fails to provide public notice of complaints that have been lodged against its licensed attorneys. Because complaints are not public, Plaintiff contends that he was not, and has not, been able to find out if other litigants have lodged complaints with the Georgia Bar against Daniels.[22]
In connection with his claims in this case, Plaintiff seeks: appointment of counsel; injunction; issuance of summons, “if alleged, by remedies available;” “dismissal, from lack of knowledge;” summary judgment on the merits; “notice & consent to magistrate…review complaint before proceeding;” “petition for civil penalties….as third party;” and a witness hearing.[23]
III. Law and Analysis
A. Plaintiff Had Not Established That This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction
As was explained to Plaintiff at the Spears hearing, unlike state district courts, which are courts of general jurisdiction and may therefore hear all types of claims, federal courts may only entertain those cases over which there is federal subject matter jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be established in two ways. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States.”[24] This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00 exclusive of interest and costs and the parties are completely diverse (i.e., all plaintiffs are citizens of a different state than all defendants).[25] The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting it (here, Plaintiff).[26] A court may raise on its own at any time the issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.[27]
Regarding diversity, which Plaintiff does not allege as a basis for jurisdiction, [28] the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a Louisiana citizen;[29] however, during the Spears hearing,
questioning of Plaintiff revealed that he is likely a South Carolina citizen, [30] despite his pleading and the fact that, at the time of the filing the Complaint, he resided in Louisiana. The Amended Complaints fail to adequately plead the citizenship of Defendants.[31] Plaintiff stated during the hearing that he believes that Daniels is a citizen of North Carolina. The Georgia Bar is “as an administrative arm of the [Georgia Supreme] court a unified self-governing bar association ... known as the ‘State Bar of Georgia,' composed of all persons licensed to practice law' in the state.”[32] In Cohran v. State Bar of Georgia, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held that: “The Georgia Supreme Court is an arm of the State of Georgia. The State Bar is an arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.”[33]Per Eleventh Circuit authority, the Georgia Bar does not appear to be a citizen for the purposes of § 1332, to the extent it is an arm of the State of Georgia, by virtue of being an arm of the Georgia Supreme Court.[34] Therefore, while Plaintiff and Daniels appear diverse, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction does not exist over Plaintiff's claims against the Georgia Bar.
Furthermore, the Amended Complaints fail to adequately plead a sufficient amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and it does not otherwise appear from Plaintiff's factual allegations that his damages will likely exceed $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs. In particular, and as discussed below, it is not clear that Plaintiff has suffered any substantial damages by the action of Daniels in not filing the complaint Daniels drafted because Plaintiff has
To continue reading
Request your trial