Shuler v. Arnott

• Decision Date: 03 November 2022
• Docket Number: 6:20-cv-03281-MDH
• Parties: CAROL SHULER AND ROGER SHULER, Plaintiffs, v. JIM ARNOTT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

1

CAROL SHULER AND ROGER SHULER, Plaintiffs, v. JIM ARNOTT, et al., Defendants.

No. 6:20-cv-03281-MDH

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

November 3, 2022

ORDER

DOUGLAS HARPOOL, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants Jim Arnott's, Christian Conrad's, Scott Harrison's, Debi Wade's, and Jeremy Lynn's (“Moving Defendants'”) 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Federal Law Claims (Doc. 219) contained in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc 212). Also before the Court is Moving Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Missouri State Law Claims (Doc. 221). Carol and Roger Shuler (“Plaintiffs”) have responded (Doc 226). Moving Defendants have responded in turn (Doc. 228). Plaintiffs remain pro se. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, Defendants' Motion, and Plaintiffs' response. For reasons set forth herein, Moving Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Missouri State Law Claims is MOOT. Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Federal Law Claims is GRANTED. This order also renders MOOT Moving Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 231).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' allegations against Moving Defendants regard an incident on September 9, 2015. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint consists of sixty-six pages and alleges thirty counts of various constitutional, f ederal, and state law violations against twenty-seven defendants. Moving Defendants are implicated in some, but not all allegations. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint realleges various claims featured in earlier versions of Plaintiffs' complaint, which this Court previously dismissed with prejudic e.

Taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, Plaintiffs lived in Alabama for twenty-seven years and were politically persecuted in that state by persons other than Moving Defendants in retaliation for Roger Shuler posting material on his blog, Legal Schnauzer. Doc. 212 ¶ 29. Plaintiffs moved to Springfield, Missouri to avoid political persecution and because their Alabama home was foreclosed. Doc. 212 at ¶ ¶ 29-30. In Springfield, Plaintiffs were treated at Burrell Health Services and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Doc. 212 at ¶ 36. Roger Shuler's mother agreed to pay the rent for a duplex for Plaintiffs. Doc. 212 at ¶ 37. In June 2015, Roger's brother David Shuler told him that the landlord was willing to enter a new lease. Doc. 212 at ¶ 41. On July 2, 2015, a notice was taped to Plaintiffs' door telling them to vacate. Doc. 212 at ¶ 42. In August 2015, Plaintiffs received notice of a rent and possession lawsuit being filed against them Doc. 212 at ¶ 43. On August 12, 2015, two employees of Burrell called 911 and reported Roger Shuler threatened to shoot officers during any attempted eviction and Roger had a gun. Doc. 212 at ¶ 46. On August 31, 2015, the court in the rent and possession case ruled in favor of the landlord for both rent and possession. Doc. 212 at ¶ 44.

On September 2, 2015, David Shuler sent an email to Roger Shuler stating Defendant Harrison said a dispatcher had reported Roger Shuler called 911 and threatened to shoot anyone who attempted to evict the Plaintiffs. Doc. 212 at ¶ 45. This email was inaccurate, because it was two Burrell employees, not Roger Shuler, who called 911. Doc. 212 at ¶ 46. Plaintiffs received notice eviction was scheduled for September 9, 2015. Doc. 212 at ¶ ¶ 42-43. Defendant Housley, an attorney at the law firm of Lowther Johnson, acting in an advisory role to the Greene County Sheriff s Office, gave the go-ahead to proceed with the eviction . Doc. 212 at ¶ 9, 50. On September 9, 2015, at approximately 2:00 PM, Defendant Arnott, along with Defendants Harrison, Lynn, plus other officers, burst into Plaintiffs' residence. Doc. 212 at ¶ 49. Defendant Harrison pointed a firearm at Roger Shuler. Doc. 212 at ¶ 49. Defendant Lynn handcuffed Carol Shuler and someone slammed Carol Shuler into the wall. Doc. 212 at ¶ 49. Defendant Arnott handcuffed Roger Shuler. Doc. 212 at ¶ 50. Carol Shuler then went in and out of the apartment to place personal items in the trunk of Plaintiffs' vehicle, but as she approached the apartment, Defendants Wade and Harrison blocked her path. Doc. 212 at ¶ 51. An unknown officer, who Plaintiffs lab el “Mr. Blue Shirt,” approached Carol Shuler from behind and slammed her to the ground, then grabbed both of her arms and broke one of them. Doc. 212 at ¶ 51. Plaintiff s have never identified “Mr. Blue Shirt” and believe he may or may not be associated with one of a variety of law enforcement agencies. Doc. 212 at ¶ 97. Carol Shuler was arrested and taken away in a squad car, and Roger Shuler was released. Doc. 212 at ¶ ¶ 51, 54. By the next morning, September 10, 2015, Carol Shuler had been let go and reunited with Roger Shuler at a hospital. Doc. 212 at ¶ ¶ 56-57. After September 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs suffered from multiple acts of individuals other than the Moving Defendants. Doc. 212 at ¶¶ 55 et seq. Carol Shuler was later found guilty of a misdemeanor charge of assault against a law enforcement officer stemming from the incident wherein her arm was broken. Doc. 212 at ¶ 65.

STANDARD

A complaint must contain factual allegations, when accepted as true, sufficient to state a claim of relief plausible on its face. Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court “must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036, 1039 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). The complaint's factual allegations must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” and the motion to dismiss must be granted if the complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). “The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

DISCUSSION

I. State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint realleges various claims from earlier versions of Plaintiffs' complaint, which this Court previously dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 142. “Dismissal with prejudice has the effect of a final adjudication on the merits.” TCBY Sys., Inc. v. EGB Assocs., Inc., 2 F.3d 288, 290 (8th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). The below counts against the following defendants in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint are moot, as this Court previously dismissed these counts with prejudice.

A. Count Nine - Defamation against Defendant Arnott;

B. Count Ten (mistakenly labeled Count Nine in Third Amended Complaint) - Abuse of Process against Defendant Arnott; C. Missouri law claims in Count Eleven (mistakenly labeled Count Ten in Third Amended Complaint) - Assault and Battery against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn (federal law claims alleged under this count were not previously dismissed and therefore remain active);

D. Count Twelve (mistakenly labeled Count Eleven in Third Amended Complaint) - Trespass against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn;

E. Count Thirteen (mistakenly labeled Count Twelve in Third Amended Complaint) - Invasion of Privacy and Identity Theft against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn;

F. Count Fourteen (mistakenly labeled Count Thirteen in Third Amended Complaint) - Personal Injury/Negligence against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn;

G. Count Fifteen (mistakenly labeled Count Fourteen in Third Amended Complaint) - Infliction of Emotional Distress against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn;

H. Count Seventeen (mistakenly labeled Count Sixteen in Third Amended Complaint) - Forcible Entry and Detainer against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn;

I. Count Nineteen (mistakenly labeled Count Eighteen in Third Amended Complaint) - Conversion against Defendants Arnott, Conrad, Harrison, Wade, and Lynn; and

J. Missouri law claims in Count Twenty-Three (mistakenly labeled Count Twenty-Two in Third Amended Complaint) - Failure to Adequately Hire, Train, and Supervise Employees against Defendant Arnott (federal law claims alleged under this count were not previously dismissed and therefore remain active).

This finding renders MOOT Moving Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on the Applicable Statutes of Limitations all Missouri Law Claims (Doc. 221). Only Plaintiffs' federal law claims remain.

II. Federal Claims

Plaintiffs' federal law claims consist of various § 1983, § 1985, and § 1986 civil rights allegations. Plaintiffs raised the majority of these claims in their Second Amended Complaint. Unlike Plaintiff's state law claims, however, this Court did not previously dismiss Plaintiffs' federal law allegations. The Court will therefore consider the merits of each argument raised by Moving Defendants.

A. Official Capacity

Plaintiffs allege each of their claims against Moving Defendants in both individual and official capacity. Doc. 212 at ¶ ¶ 4-23. Though Moving Defendants contend Plaintiffs fail to allege any constitutional violations whatsoever, Moving Defendants also argue Plaintiffs allege insufficient facts to grant relief based on any official capacity claim. Doc. 220 at 16-17. Moving Defendants also argue all official capacity allegations are duplicative. Doc. 220 at 17. The Supreme Court held official capacity claims are in practice suits against the official's office. “Obviously, state officials literally are persons. But a suit...