Powell v. Lab Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2018
• Docket Number: 17-CV-3632 (JMA)(GRB)
• Parties: TERENCE C. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. LAB CORPORATION, MR. & MRS. KEVIN NAPIER, NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, NATIONAL GRID, AND IBEW LOCAL 1049, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

TERENCE C. POWELL, Plaintiff, v. LAB CORPORATION, MR. & MRS. KEVIN NAPIER,NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, NATIONAL GRID,AND IBEW LOCAL 1049, Defendants.

17-CV-3632 (JMA)(GRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

December 27, 2018

For Online Publication Only

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APPEARANCES:

Terence C. Powell

Pro se Plaintiff

Samera S. Ludwig

Nixon Peabody LLP

70 West Madison Street, Suite 3500

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Attorney for Defendant Lab Corporation

Inez and Kevin Napier

39 Pine Street

Central Islip, New York 11722

Pro se Defendants

Ralph Pernick

Assistant Attorney General

New York State Attorney General's Office

200 Old Country Road, Suite 240

Mineola, New York 11501

Attorney for Defendant New York State Unified Court System

Patrick M. Collins

Christina M. Schmid

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

1745 Broadway, 22^nd Floor

New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Defendant National Grid

AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Terence C. Powell ("plaintiff"), acting pro se, commenced this action on June 16, 2017 against Lab Corporation¹ ("LabCorp"), Mr. Kevin Napier ("Kevin Napier"), Mrs. Inez Napier ("Inez Napier"), the New York State Unified Court System ("NYSUCS"), National Grid and IBEW Local 1049 (the "Union"), (collectively, "defendants"). Specifically, construing plaintiff's complaint liberally, plaintiff brings claims against all defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") alleging violations of his federal civil rights under the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff also alleges conspiracy, and violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA"). (Compl. at 4-8, ECF No. 1.)² Additionally, plaintiff alleges state law claims for "paternity fraud," harassment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 9-10.) Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by LabCorp, Kevin Napier and Inez Napier (together, "the Napiers"), the NYSUCS, and National Grid pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants defendants' motions.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from plaintiff's complaint and the record before the Court. In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court may take judicial notice of public records, including state court filings. Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Canada), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2004). The Court also considers exhibits which are attached or integral to the complaint. Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004).

A. Paternity Proceedings

The allegations in the complaint stem from plaintiff's long-time claim of paternity to Durelle Napier ("D. Napier"), the son of his ex-girlfriend, defendant, Inez Napier. On October 13, 1994, an order of filiation was entered adjudicating defendant Kevin Napier the father of D. Napier. (Pl.'s Notice of Additional Facts about the Case ("Pl.'s Notice"), Ex. G August 26, 2013 Suffolk County Family Court Dismissal Order, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff alleges that on April 26, 1999, he petitioned the Suffolk County Family Court for a paternity test of D. Napier. (Compl. at 12.) On May 27, 1999, the court ordered a DNA blood test, (Pl.'s Notice, Ex. A May 27, 1999 Order), and on July 3, 1999, plaintiff received the DNA test results from LabCorp and the court indicating that he was not the father of D. Napier and his paternity petition was thereafter dismissed. (Id.; Pl.'s Notice, Ex. G.)

Subsequently, in 2012, plaintiff filed a paternity petition in Queens County Family Court seeking another DNA test on D. Napier. (Compl. at 13.) On August 3, 2012, that court dismissed plaintiff's de novo paternity petition finding the proper remedy was for plaintiff to file a motion to vacate the order of filiation entered in Suffolk County Family Court. (Id.; Pl.'s Notice, Ex. G.)

Yet again, on March 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a de novo paternity petition in Suffolk County Family Court seeking an order of filiation adjudicating him to be the father of D. Napier. (Pl.'s Notice, Ex. G.) According to the court's order, in that petition, plaintiff "swore that 'no individual ha[d] been adjudicated the father of this child' despite [plaintiff's] clear knowledge of the existing order of filiation." (Id.) Plaintiff claims that on March 19, 2013, he informed the Suffolk County Family Court that some of the prior court proceedings were omitted from the court transcript. (Compl. at 13.)³ On August 26, 2013, the court dismissed plaintiff's paternity petition under thedoctrine of collateral estoppel. (Pl.'s Notice, Ex. G.) Plaintiff claims that he received an unsigned and unstamped copy of this dismissal order. (Compl. at 8, 14.)

B. Plaintiff's Arrests

Plaintiff alleges that in 2004 he was arrested by Suffolk County police and "charged with stalking by Mrs. Ine[z] Napier at a day care center." (Id. at 12.) He claims that the charge was dismissed on November 22, 2004. (Id.) That same day, a temporary order of protection was issued against plaintiff for both Inez Napier and D. Napier. (Pl.'s Notice, Ex. C, September 22, 2004 Order of Protection.) Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on April 27, 2006 by Nassau County police and "charged with breaking order of protection by National Grid Security and Mrs. Inez Napier for saying hello to [third] party Subrena Burwell at [his] place of employment National Grid" and for telling her to say hello to Mrs. Napier. (Compl. at 12; Pl.'s Notice, Ex. D, May 2, 2006 Statement of Terrence Powell.) He claims that this charge was dismissed on May 1, 2006. (Compl. at 12.)

On July 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant Inez Napier in Suffolk County small claims court to reimburse him $4,000 in attorney fees. (Pl.'s Opp. Mem. to Napiers' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 34 at 7, Ex. K, Suffolk County District Court Complaint Form.) Plaintiff claims that on October 25, 2007 he was arrested by a Suffolk County police officer and "charged with assault by Mr. Kevin Napier at Saint Anthony's High School but that the charge was dismissed. (Compl. at 12.) In exchange for the dismissal of his small claims case, plaintiff alleges that he "was suppose[d] to receive a DNA [t]est in return I would drop the [a]ttorney fee charge for the false arrest charged by Mr. Kevin Napier. I'm still waiting to receive the DNA test for my son Durelle Napier." (Pl.'s Opp. Mem. to Napiers' Mot. to Dismiss at 7-8, Ex. K.)

C. Plaintiff's Employment and Termination

Plaintiff was employed by National Grid from at least 2006 through April 7, 2011 when he was terminated following his second violation of National Grid's Anti-Drug/Alcohol Program. (Compl. at 7, 12; Affirmation of Christina M. Schmid ("Schmid Aff."), Ex. C, Termination Letter, ECF No. 29-2.) Plaintiff alleges that from November 2008 to March 2011 he was subjected to drug testing by National Grid a total of sixteen times "without the computer selection process," including when he was "discharged from National Grid for a drug test that was not random." (Compl. at 7, 12, 13.) Plaintiff claims his call to the business office of IBEW 1049 for documentation on National Grid's random drug testing program was ignored on several occasions. (Id. at 12-13.) He claims that after he contacted the National Labor Relations Board he received documentation that stated that all testing must be random. (Id.)

D. Plaintiff's Allegations

Though framed as a Section 1983 claim, it appears that plaintiff's complaint is yet another feeble attempt to claim paternity to the Napiers' son, D. Napier. Plaintiff alleges that defendants LabCorp, National Grid and the NYSUCS conspired against plaintiff to keep him from fatherhood. (Id. at 7, 9.) Plaintiff further alleges that defendants National Grid, LabCorp and NYSUCS are "business associates" because National Grid and NYSUCS both utilized LabCorp for testing purposes. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff claims that these three defendants "collu[ded]" and "conspired" with one another in the administration and reporting of his drug and paternity testing. He claims further that he was subjected to drug testing that was not random. (Id. at 7, 9.) Finally, he claims that the Napiers "collu[ded] with the NYSUCS in making false police reports, having him falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted. (See Pl.'s Opp. Mem to Napiers' Mot. to Dismiss at 2-9.)

Plaintiff alleges that he has been injured in the following manner: "loss of enjoyment of life, lost earning capacity, lost wages, mental anguish, inconvenience, injury to professional standing, injury to character and reputation, injury to credit standing, emotional distress, mental distress." (Compl. at 9.) He seeks the "HELP of the court to make these corporations understand that family is business also. Fatherhood is a civil and natural right and that you conspired to keep me from these rights, so you must pay." (Id.) Specifically, plaintiff seeks the following relief and alleges the following claims against the specific defendants: (1) LabCorp: twenty-five million dollars for "paternity fraud, illegal random testing, and conspiracy"; (2) NYSUCS: ten million dollars for "paternity fraud, false arrest, conspiracy, omitting evidence from transcript, denial of justice, defamation of character, unsigned and unstamped dismissal for a DNA test for my son, and speedy trial"; (3) the Napiers: one-hundred thousand dollars for "false arrest, paternity fraud, conspiracy, defamation of character, and harassment"; (4) National Grid: ten million dollars in backpay for "false arrest, conspiracy, illegal random testing policies, harassment, defamation of character"; and (5) IBEW Local 1049: ten million dollars for "withholding drug testing documentation, conspiracy, harassment, defamation of character, illegal random drug...