Phelps v. Macconnell
| Decision Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:12cv00344 |
| Parties | COY PHELPS, Plaintiff, v. RION MACCONNELL, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Plaintiff Coy Phelps is an inmate at the Springfield Federal Medical Center in Missouri.2 He brings this case pro se against a company - Defendant U.S. Mint Green, Ltd. - that provides publishing and marketing services to inmates who have authored their autobiographies or other materials. Additional Defendants are Rion MacConnell and Heather F. Green, allegedly "members" of Defendant U.S. Mint Green.
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts several federal claims including, for example, violationsof the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, "Copyright Infringement/False Authorship," and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The Complaint also asserts many claims under Ohio law including, in part, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and conversion. Among the relief Plaintiff seeks is an award of "restitution damages" in the amount of $2,100.00 and "punitive damages in the amount of ten million tax free dollars." (Doc. #1, PageID at 58).
The case is presently pending upon Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or Judgment as a Matter of Law, which Defendant Rion MacConnell opposes, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Rion MacConnell's response in opposition. (Doc. #s 48, 49, 53). The case is also pending upon Defendant MacConnell's ("Defendant's") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, which Plaintiff opposes (Doc. # 51, 55), and the record as a whole.3
To place the parties' present motions in context, it suffices to incorporate the Court's present review of Plaintiff's Complaint plus a few brief observations.4 (Doc. #s 26, 28).
Plaintiff's factual allegations largely concern his unsuccessful efforts to secureDefendants' help in publishing and publicizing a manuscript he wrote. He titled his manuscript "LORD NAZI" and subtitled it, "His Writings and Teachings for Racist White Supremists and True Christian Warriors of God." (Doc. #1, PageID at 95). Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to his contract with Defendants, he paid them $2,100 to perform publishing and related services, but Defendants did nothing and kept the $2,100.
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff restates certain allegations raised in his Complaint and supports the allegations with citations to his Complaint. (Doc. #48, PageID at 515). He then identifies the following six services he paid Defendants to perform, supported by citations to the Complaint.
1. Register Domain names on the internet and get copyrights on the domain names;
2. Send mass e-mail to radio talk show hosts and producers;
3. Get a book, written by the plaintiff, published on amazon.com and distribute [the] books;
4. Publish a political campaign website on the internet;
5. Make copies of the political campaign writings and the book on computer disks and mail to plaintiff's sister in law; [and]
6. Search for publicity agents and send them mass e-mail.
(Doc. #48, PageID at 514) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff states that although Defendants notified him they had received his payment and performed all requested services, "defendants lied and did not provide any service that they were paid to do ...." Id., PageID at 514-15.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment next lists "OTHER FACTS." Id., PageID at 515 (capitalization in original). This is a misnomer to the extent that his list contains a mixture of factual allegations and references to violations of law. Regardless, Plaintiff emphasizes that he alleges in pages two and three of his Complaint that Defendants:
8. That affected intrastate and interstate commerce ....
25. By the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress ....
Plaintiff argues that summary judgment in his favor is warranted because "the facts are so one sided for the plaintiff that there is no defense for the defendants." Id., PageID at 513).
Under Rule 56 a party is entitled to summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute over any material fact and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). When resolving whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, all reasonable inferences are drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox County, Tenn., 555 F.3d 512, 520 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986)). "The function of the court in assessing a summary judgment motion is not 'to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696, 702 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting, in part, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).
"Summary judgment is appropriate 'against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC,681 F.3d 274, 281 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Daugherty, 544 F.3d at 702); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because he has not met his initial burden to show there is no genuine dispute over an issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Taft Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 247 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323); see Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 558 (6th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment does not satisfy his initial responsibility. Instead, he merely restates some of his allegations, such as the services Defendants were allegedly supposed to, but failed to, provide under the terms of their contract. Neither those allegations nor his lengthy list of "OTHER FACTS" demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any of his claims.
Plaintiff's Motion also fails to show that the evidence is so one-sided that a reasonable jury could only rule one way: in his favor on one or more of his claims. Where, as in the present case, "the moving party has the burden of proof at trial - the plaintiff on a claim for relief or the defendant on an affirmative defense - his showing must be sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the movingparty." Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). "This means that, if the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in that party's favor." Vasquez v. City of Bell Gardens, 938 F.Supp. 1487, 1494 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment does not connect evidence of record with the particular elements of his claims. This shortcoming fails to show that a jury could only find in his favor on one or more of his claims. He is not, therefore, entitled to summary judgment in his favor.
Plaintiff disagrees. He contends that his Motion for Summary Judgment requires Defendant "to come forward with more than a scintilla of evidence showing specific and particular arguable proof, facts, and evidence, in opposition to the issues and facts in the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment showing there are specific genuine issues of material fact in dispute." (Doc. #53, PageID at 545). This argument, however, overlooks that Plaintiff carries the ultimate burden of proving his claims. In light of this burden, his showing in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment "must be sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party." Calderone, 799 F.2d at 259 (emphasis omitted); see Vasquez, 938 F.Supp. at 1494. Because his Motion does not do so, he is not entitled to summary judgment on his claims.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment lacks merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial