Shuler v. Duke
| Decision Date | 31 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:16-CV-0501-VEH |
| Parties | ROGER SHULER and CAROL SHULER, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY DUKE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roger Shuler ("Roger") and Carol Shuler ("Carol") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed this lawsuit on March 26, 2016, against twenty-two defendants: Francois Blaudeau, Chris Blevins, Campus Crest Communities, Christina Crow, Chris Curry, Mike DeHart, Liberty Duke, Google, Keith Jackson, Jinks Crow & Dickson, McMichael & Parrish Homes, Jeremiah Mosley, Jay Murrill, Zac Parrish, William H. Pryor, Rob Riley, Riley Jackson LLC, Michelle Rollins, Ted Rollins, Rollins Jamaica LTD, TXG Capital, and Jason Valenti. (Complaint, doc. 1) On September 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint (doc. 26), which is therefore the operative document before this Court. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the original twenty-two defendants, and, for the first time, asserts claims against the following additional eight (8) defendants: Luther Strange, Harrison Street Real Estate/Campus Crest Communities, Jessica Medeiros Garrison, William E. Swatek, Watercrest Group, Valeo Groupe, David Gespass, and Claud Neilson. According to CM/ECF, all but three of the defendants have appeared.1 Two of those defendants-Harrison Street Real Estate/Campus Crest Communities and Watercrest Group-who have not appeared were not named in the original Complaint, but only in the Amended Complaint. The third non-appearing defendant is identified on CM/ECF as Campus Crest Communities and was named in the original Complaint.2
The Amended Complaint is a model of "mud throwing" by the Plaintiffs, together with conclusory allegations but very few relevant facts. It is also classically "shotgun" in nature, a practice that has been repeatedly condemned by the Eleventh Circuit. See, e.g., Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001); Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 164 (11thCir. 1997); Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, defendants have filed motions to dismiss the claims against them. Plaintiffs have responded and replies have been filed. Accordingly, the motions are ripe for determination.3
The Court will first set out the applicable standards. It will then analyze each of the Counts of the Amended Complaint. For the reasons set out below, the Court finds that all claims in all Counts are due to be dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.
Because Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court reviews the Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).4 That statute instructs the Court to dismiss an action brought by an in forma pauperis plaintiff if the action is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or"seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) (discussing frivolity under § 1915).
A claim is frivolous as a matter of law where, inter alia, the defendants are immune from suit, id. at 327, 109 S. Ct. at 1833, or the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist. Id. Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations must show plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]" Id. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. That is, the allegations must be a "plain statement possess[ing] enough heft to sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 557, 127 S. Ct. at 1966 () (internal quotations marks omitted). "[L]abels and conclusions [ ] and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements" are insufficient grounds for entitlement to relief. Id. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. However, when a successful affirmative defense ... appears on the face of a complaint, dismissal for failure to state a claim is also warranted. Jones v. Bock,549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S. Ct. 910, 920-21, 166 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2007).
The Court gives a pro se litigant's allegations a liberal construction by holding them to a more lenient standard than the those of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972). However, the Court does not have "license ... to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action." GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).
When deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and considers them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. AstraZeneca Pharm., LP, 634 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir. 2011). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, 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). This requirement is satisfied if thecomplaint: (1) describes the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and (2) plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level. Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "A claim has facial plausibility when the 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., 550 U.S. at 556). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
"Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on statute of limitations grounds is appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred." La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004). Indeed, a district court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) based on any affirmative defense where the allegations of the pleading, on their face, show that the defense bars recovery. See Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2008).
The Plaintiffs identify Paragraphs 32 through 53 of their AmendedComplaint as their "Factual Allegations." All of these paragraphs are re-alleged by reference in each of Plaintiffs' fourteen Counts.5 Rather than repeat these paragraphs as to each Count, the Court will set them out once. The Court will then address each Count, setting out the additional allegations in each. The Court will first discuss Plaintiffs' federal claims (all brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983).6 Finally, the Court will address the claims brought pursuant to Alabama state law.7
To continue reading
Request your trial