Sanders v. City of Pembroke
| Decision Date | 06 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-23-TBR |
| Parties | LEONIA SANDERS, et al., PLAINTIFFS v. CITY OF PEMBROKE, et al., DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court on several motions. First, Defendants Pennyroyal Mental Health Center, Reba Pleasant, and Janet Tolliver ("PMHC Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. [DN 105]. Second, Defendants Heather Holland, Lindee Monroe, and Rebecca Perry ("CHFS Defendants") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Remaining Claims. [DN 115]. Third, Defendants Rick Burgess, Lincoln Foster, Eddie Frye, and Maureen Leamy filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. [DN 122]. Finally, Defendant Susan Redmond-Vaught filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. [DN 124]. Fully briefed, these matters are ripe for adjudication.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Pennyroyal Mental Health Center, Reba Pleasant, and Janet Tolliver's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, [DN 105], is GRANTED; Defendants Heather Holland, Lindee Monroe, and Rebecca Perry's Motion for Summary Judgment on Remaining Claims, [DN 115], is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants Rick Burgess, Lincoln Foster, Eddie Frye, and Maureen Leamy's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, [DN 122], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and Defendant Susan Redmond-Vaught's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, [DN 124], is GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Order and Judgment contemporaneous to this Memorandum Opinion.
Plaintiff Leonia Sanders lives in Pembroke, Kentucky with her twenty-seven-year-old son, Ronald Sanders. [DN 51 at 771-72]. Mr. Sanders suffers from mental illness and Ms. Sanders worked with the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services ("CHFS") and Pennyroyal Mental Health Center ("PMHC") to manage her son's care. Id. at 772. However, Ms. Sanders claims that these institutions "betrayed her and Ronald, and with the help of county and municipal law enforcement, [] conspired to kidnap her son" by making him a ward of the state. Id. The Amended Complaint provides a lengthy and detailed description of the alleged conspiracy which implicates fourteen individuals and agencies in Christian County.
On February 13, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the current action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as defamation, abuse of process, assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and outrage. [See DN 1]. Subsequently, Defendants City of Pembroke, Judy Peterson, and Mark Reid filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. [DN 88, 107]. Additionally, the CHFS Defendants filed a partial motion for summary judgment, which was granted. [DN 93, 113]. The CHFS Defendants have filed a second motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. [DN 115]. In response to this motion, Plaintiffs withdrew their abuse of process and assault and battery claims against the CHFS Defendants. [DN 121]. Accordingly, the remaining claims against the CHFS Defendants are dismissed and the CHFS Defendants' motion for summary judgment, [DN 115], is DENIED AS MOOT.
There are currently three motions before the Court. Defendants Rick Burgess, Lincoln Foster, Eddie Frye, and Maureen Leamy, as well as the Pennyroyal Defendants filed motions to dismiss, or in the alternative, motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs responded to these motions pursuant to the summary judgment standard. However, given that no discovery has been conducted in this matter, the Court believes it would be premature to rule on these motions as motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will analyze the instant motions pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(6).
Courts evaluating motions to dismiss are generally limited to consideration of the complaint and any exhibits attached to the complaint. Father Flanagan's Boys Home v. Donlon, No. 1:18-CV-644, 2020 WL 1469469, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2020). "However, a court may consider certain materials outside of the pleadings without converting the motion to one for summary judgment." Id. These materials include "'exhibits attached [to the complaint], public records, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims contained therein.'" Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 680-81 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008)). The Court will limit its analysis according to this standard.
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a party must "plead enough 'factual matter' to raise a 'plausible' inference of wrongdoing." 16630 Southfield Ltd. P'ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A claim becomes plausible "whenthe plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must presume all of the factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc., 552 F.3d at 434 (citing Great Lakes Steel, 716 F.2d at 1105). "The court need not, however, accept unwarranted factual inferences." Id. (citing Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)). Should the well-pleaded facts support no "more than the mere possibility of misconduct," then dismissal is warranted. Iqbal, 556 U.S at 679. The Court may grant a motion to dismiss "only if, after drawing all reasonable inferences from the allegations in the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, the complaint still fails to allege a plausible theory of relief." Garceau v. City of Flint, 572 F. App'x 369, 371 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-79).
First, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants conspired against Mr. and Ms. Sanders in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Plaintiffs allege that the Pennyroyal Defendants, Redmond-Vaught, Frye, Burgess, Foster, and Leamy "entered into an agreement and shared a common plan with the objective of legally incapacitating and physically removing Ronald Sanders from Christian County, effectively kidnapping him, through an abuse of the judicial and social services processes, in violation of Mr. Sanders'" constitutional rights. [DN 51 at 772].
The Sixth Circuit has held that a viable 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim must contain:
(1) [A] conspiracy involving two or more persons (2) for the purpose of depriving, directly or indirectly, a person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy (4) whichcauses injury to a person or property, or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.
Johnson v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp., 40 F.3d 837, 839 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Hilliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d 649, 652-53 (5th Cir. 1994)). A plaintiff "must also establish that the conspiracy was motivated by a class-based animus." Johnson, 40 F.3d at 839. "A class protected by section 1985(3) must possess the characteristics of a discrete and insular minority, such as race, national origin, or gender." Haverstick Enters., Inc. v. Fin. Fed. Credit, Inc., 32 F.3d 989, 994 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 970 F.2d 378, 382 (7th Cir. 1992)).
The Sixth Circuit has held that "§ 1985(3) only covers conspiracies against: 1) classes who receive heightened protection under the Equal Protection Clause; and 2) 'those individuals who join together as a class for the purpose of asserting certain fundamental rights.'" Bartell v. Lohiser, 215 F.3d 550, 560 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting Browder v. Tipton, 630 F.2d 1149 (6th Cir. 1980)). "[T]he Supreme Court has not conferred suspect or quasi-suspect status on statutory classifications covering the disabled." Id. (citing City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 442 (1985)); see also Haverstick, 32 F.3d at 994 (). Therefore, claims of disability-based discrimination or animus are not actionable under § 1985(3). Bartell, 215 F.3d at 560; Kuerbitz v. Meisner, No. 17-2284, 2018 WL 5310762, at *3 (6th Cir. July 11, 2018) (); Diemond v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 1:17-CV-928, 2018 WL 1150023, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2018), aff'd, No. 18-1344, 2018 WL 7890769 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018) ().To the extent that Plaintiffs' § 1985(3) claims are based on disability discrimination, they are not actionable and must be dismissed.
The Court will address Plaintiffs' § 1985(3) race-based discrimination claims against each Defendant in turn.
Plaintiffs describe the Pennyroyal Defendants' alleged involvement in the § 1985(3) conspiracy as follows:
Tolliver, Pleasant, and PMHC maliciously and falsely alleged that Mrs. Sanders sabotaged and caused turmoil in her son's life, specifically in relation to factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial