Schmitt v. Reimer, CV 110-102
| Decision Date | 13 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | CV 110-102 |
| Parties | MARK HERBERT SCHMITT, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN M. REIMER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
On August 2, 2010, Plaintiff Mark Herbert Schmitt filed a complaint against sixteen named defendants based upon allegations arising out of his prior state court divorce proceedings. (Doc. no. 1.) Defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss. On August 17, 2011, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.1 (Doc. no. 88.) The Court allowed Plaintiff fourteen days to file an Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court's August 17, 2011 Order.2 On September 28, 2011, Plaintifffiled his Amended Complaint entitled "Complaint for RICO Conspiracy and Civil Rights Violations." (Doc. no. 97.)
Presently pending before the Court are motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by fourteen of the fifteen remaining Defendants3 (doc. nos. 115, 116, 119, 122, 123, 125, 133, 138), and Defendant Reimer's Renewed Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 137). Plaintiff has not responded to any of the pending motions. For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and the motion for sanctions is DENIED.4
A. Overview
Plaintiff brings this pro se action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff is suing nearly every individual who played a role in his state court divorce proceedings including: Judge Daniel J. Craig, the presiding judge over Plaintiff's divorce proceeding; Linda Schmitt, Plaintiff's ex-wife; John Garcia and Beth Smith, Plaintiff's divorce attorneys; Barbara Ann Smith, Beth Smith's law partner; Edward Coleman, Linda Schmitt's divorce attorney and his law partner Carl Surrett; Amanda Bellotti, the attorney who presided over the mediation between Plaintiff and his wife; Susan Reimer, the closing attorney on Plaintiff's marital home; Dr. Joseph Frey, the couple's custody evaluator; William Sams, an attorney who appears to have consulted with Plaintiff and his ex-wife; Gene Staulcup, a process server and/or private investigator; Kenneth Glover and Joseph Bradford, two alleged lovers of Linda Schmitt; and Susan Meyers, Linda Schmitt's sister.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are members of a conspiracy he calls the "association of fact enterprise." (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) The "association of fact enterprise," according to Plaintiff, "promotes the feminist agenda" by, among other things, granting custody to women in divorce proceedings. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff claims that the Superior Court judges in Columbia and Richmond Counties are the directors of the "association of fact enterprise;" Defendants Beth Smith, Barbara Smith, Sams, Garcia, and Coleman are its officers; and Defendants Schmitt, Myers, Glover, Bradford, Frey, and Staulcup are its hired employees. (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant engaged in individual acts of misconduct, and this misconduct, taken together, forms the predicate acts in a pattern of racketeering. (Id. ¶ 24.) The following statement of claims forms the basis of Plaintiff's conspiracy theory.5
Plaintiff believes that Judge Craig and the divorce attorneys involved in Plaintiff's divorce case conspired against him in an effort to hinder his divorce and deprive him of his fundamental rights. Plaintiff and his now former spouse, Linda Schmitt, appeared before Judge Craig of the Superior Court of Richmond County to initiate divorce proceedings. The proceedings commenced on June 5, 2 009, and concluded on October 15, 2010, with the entry of a final divorce decree. Throughoutthe proceedings, Garcia, and subsequently Beth Smith, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, and Coleman appeared on behalf of Linda Schmitt. According to Plaintiff, Judge Craig and Coleman committed fraud via the divorce decree because they authorized the transfer of $322,000.00 from Plaintiff's retirement account to Linda Schmitt knowing that this "unusually large amount" violated state and federal law. (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff further alleges that Beth Smith, the attorney retained after Plaintiff fired Garcia, failed to reaffirm that Plaintiff wanted a jury trial in his divorce proceedings. (Id. ¶ 12.) He claims that Beth Smith, and her partner Barbara Smith, defrauded him by failing to refund $7,000 of his $8,400 retainer. (Id.) These acts, according to the Amended Complaint, form part of the conspiracy because the "financial gains go directly and indirectly to the woman, the lengthy divorce proceedings garner more court costs for the Courts, the attorneys get a lucrative and steady flow of income, [and] the Bar Associations make more donations to Judges . . . ." (Id. ¶ 24.)
Aside from raising claims against his divorce attorneys and the presiding judge, Plaintiff alleges that a number of other individuals performed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. For example, Plaintiff claims that Dr. Frey, his custody evaluator, committed perjury "when he stated that he was never appointed to do the custody evaluation" in Plaintiff's divorcecase. (Id. ¶ 6.) Bellotti allegedly conspired against Plaintiff during mediation when she "intervened and stated [that Plaintiff] wouldn't get very far with [his request for full custody] here in the South." (Id. ¶ 7.) According to Plaintiff, Bellotti also presented a "biased and stereotypical view and supported Defendant Schmitt in trying to accomplish the very same thing." (Id.) Reiemer allegedly provided legal advice to Linda Schmitt and Myers regarding ways to conceal assets from Plaintiff during the divorce. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff hired Staulcup to conduct surveillance on the relationship between Linda Schmitt and Glover. (Id. ¶ 16.) According to Plaintiff, at the time Staulcup was hired, he was already working for Linda Schmitt, and therefore he knowingly entered into a conflict of interest. (Id.)
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint also alleges that Linda Schmitt along with her friends and family conspired to swindle him out of his financial assets. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Linda Schmitt stole $30,000.00 from him and used this money to fund her business, Big Hit Gift Baskets, LLC. (Id. ¶ 15.) He alleges that Linda Schmitt's lover, Glover, and her sister, Myers, conspired with Linda Schmitt to conceal marital assets in Big Hit Gift Baskets, LLC. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Glover "enjoyed the benefit of food and shelter" at Plaintiff's expense, assisted Linda Schmitt in "concealing theadulterous affair," and "benefited from the $30,000 that [Linda] Schmitt stole [from Plaintiff]." (Id. ¶ 14.) Bradford, another alleged adulterous lover of Linda Schmitt, is claimed to have threatened Plaintiff over the phone regarding the divorce proceedings. According to Plaintiff, this conduct amounted to retaliation. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Based upon the aforementioned claims, Plaintiff seeks $5,000,000.00 in damages from each Defendant, as well as an award of attorney's fees and declaratory relief "as this Court deems appropriate and just." (Id. ¶ 30.)
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Scheur v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and construe all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey, 312 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). The court, however, need not accept the complaint's legal conclusions as true, only its well-pled facts. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009).
A complaint also must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 'to state a claim to relief that is plausibleon its face.'" Id. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plaintiff is required to plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. While there is no probability requirement at the pleading stage, "something beyond . . . mere possibility . . . must be alleged." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (citing Durma Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347 (2005)).
Given the unique issues raised as a result of his position as a superior court judge, the frequency with which he appears in the Amended Complaint, and the potential effect a ruling on his motion to dismiss may have on the remaining claims, the Court's analysis will begin with Plaintiff's claims against Judge Craig. Judge Craig contends that he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity as to those claims that arise entirely from his conduct as a judicial officer duringPlaintiff's state court divorce proceedings. The Court agrees and finds that all such claims should be dismissed.
"[I]t is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself." Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (citation omitted). This doctrine, known as the doctrine of judicial immunity, "entitles a judge to absolute immunity from damages for actions taken in a judicial capacity unless the action was taken in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'" Wilson v. Bush, 196 Fed. Appx. 796, 798 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000)).
In order to overcome judicial immunity, a plaintiff must show that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial