Silvers v. Iredell Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-00083-RLV-DCK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | DAVID THOMAS SILVERS, SR., Plaintiff, v. IREDELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; D.S.S. DIR. DONALD C. WALL, in his individual and official capacities; ASST. D.A. PAXTON BUTLER, in his individual and official capacities, and the CITY OF STATESVILLE, N.C., Defendants. |
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 16) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as to Defendants Iredell County Department of Social Services (the "Department") and Donald C. Wall (Doc. No. 5).1
Because the parties' submissions are filed and pending, this matter is ripe for the Court's review. After a thorough review of the record, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE to file a second amended complaint, as provided below.
Plaintiff David T. Silvers, Sr. is the father of four children - two boys and two girls. [Doc. No. 2] at ¶ 1. In December 2000, Plaintiff had retained custody of his eldest child and was pursuing custody of his three younger children. Id. The three youngest children lived with their mother in Maryland. Id. On December 26, 2000, Plaintiff was awarded custody of his three younger children by a Maryland state court. Id. On April 21, 2003, Plaintiff's award of custody was affirmed by a Maryland appellate court. Id. at ¶ 2. At that time, the four children were residing with Plaintiff at a residence located in Statesville, North Carolina. Id.
On June 5, 2004, Plaintiff's three youngest children visited their mother for the summer. [Doc. No. 2] at ¶ 3. At some point thereafter, Defendant Wall directed the Department to take the Plaintiff's four children into temporary custody. Id. A guardian ad litem was also appointed for the children. Id. While they were in the temporary custody of the Department, the Plaintiff was permitted to have only supervised visits with the children. Id. Plaintiff claims that his "freedom of speech was suppressed [during his supervised visits] by social workers" acting under Defendant Wall's orders. Id. The children's mother, however, was permitted to visit the children unsupervised. Id. During these visits, Plaintiff claims that the mother "continued coercing;" yet, Plaintiff does not allege who was coerced, how such person(s) were coerced, or for what purpose such person(s) were "coerced." Id.
Sometime between June 2004 and March 2005, a custody hearing was scheduled. [Doc. No. 2] at ¶¶ 3-4. While the Plaintiff's children were in temporary custody, the Department allegedly "conspired with [the] Assistant District Attorney of Iredell County" Paxton Butler - though the First Amended Complaint does not specify the substance of the alleged "conspiracy"or its purpose. Id. at ¶ 3. Defendant Butler threatened Plaintiff's counsel with criminal charges related to obstruction of justice "if [Plaintiff] proceeded with [the] custody hearing . . . ." Id. During the custody hearing, "there was slander from hearsay" by a social worker, and custody was "prejudicially and illegitimately taken" from Plaintiff and awarded to the mother by "Iredell County and the City of Statesville."2 Id.
In March 2005, Plaintiff drafted and delivered correspondence to the children's guardian ad litem for the purpose of communicating the "honorable achievements in his sired family that were disregarded from others" who allegedly "salaciously and treacherously coerc[ed] [Plaintiff's] sired children into a breach of promise, and disrespectful and ungrateful slander[.]" [Doc. No. 2] at ¶ 4. Plaintiff claims that his correspondence was "non-threatening freedom of speech in a religious writing . . . ." Id. Plaintiff claims that, upon receiving his correspondence, the guardian ad litem "conspired" with Defendant Butler and forwarded Plaintiff's correspondence to him without his consent; again, however, the First Amended Complaint fails to detail the purpose or substance of this alleged conspiracy. Id. Defendant Butler began receiving Plaintiff's correspondence and circulating it without his consent. Id.
On March 11, 2005, Defendant Butler "maliciously, insensibly and needlessly" filed "spurious and totalitarian charges" of "indecent liberties" and "statutory rape" against the Plaintiff by utilizing "what he wanted from the correspondence between [Plaintiff] and [the] Ad Litem[,] while disregarding the exculpatory claim . . . [that] there was libelous slander from [P]laintiff's sired children [that was] coerced by the mother." Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff claims that, by omittingexculpatory evidence from his presentation, Defendant Butler "mislead" the grand jury. Id. The only "exculpatory evidence" allegedly not disclosed by Defendant Butler was "[Plaintiff's] claim[] that the mother, with no credibility, coerced [Plaintiff's] sired children into slandering their father[.]" Id. Plaintiff claims Defendant Butler unlawfully represented to the grand jury that his children were subjected to an oppressive and unstable environment while living with him. Id. The First Amended Complaint does not allege whether Plaintiff was ever tried or convicted of these charges. However, Plaintiff does allege that, on November 25, 2014, these "charges" were expunged by order of a state court in Iredell County. Id. at ¶ 9.
Plaintiff alleges that he protested Defendant Butler's actions on September 19, 2007. Id. at ¶ 6. On October 12, 2007, Defendant Butler charged Plaintiff with "fraudulently burning [a] dwelling." Id. Defendant claims that this charge was unlawful because "higher State Courts previously held that charge does not apply" when neither substantial harm to another nor insurance fraud result from the act. Id. Plaintiff does not allege whether he was convicted of this charge or plead to this charge, or whether this charge was dropped.
On January 25, 2009, Plaintiff was confined to prison or was otherwise taken into the custody of the state; however, the First Amended Complaint does not allege whether the detention resulted from any of the above-mentioned charges, whether it occurred as the result of a trial or plea, or whether it resulted from some sort of civil detention or guardianship. Id. at ¶ 7. In fact, the First Amended Complaint does not allege why Defendant was taken into custody in 2009 or who initiated and directed the legal process against the Plaintiff. While confined by the state, Plaintiff was "deprived of liberty and due process" because he was improperly sent to a "state mental institution," which allegedly forced him to take "harmful drugs." Id. Plaintiff does not allege who improperly sent him "back and forth" to this "mental institution" or who forced him to take"harmful drugs." Plaintiff was released from custody on August 28, 2012 because of a "dismissal." Id.
On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court against the above-named defendants. [Doc. No. 1]. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 2]. Plaintiff has brought his claims pursuant to Sections 1983 and 1985 of Title 42 of the United States Code. Id. On July 22, 2015, Defendant Wall was personally served with summons and the First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 4]. On July 27, 2015, Defendant Butler was personally served with summons and the First Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 10]. The City of Statesville (the "City") has never been served - despite Plaintiff making certain accusations that can be construed to include the City. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(j)(2). Further, Iredell County has never been served - despite Plaintiff making certain accusations that can be construed to include the county. Id. Finally, the State of North Carolina has never been served - despite Plaintiff alleging an "official capacity" claim against Defendant Butler, a state employee. Id.
On July 30, 2015, Defendant Wall and the Department filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending before the Court. [Doc. No. 5]. Defendant Butler has never plead or otherwise defended against Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default against Defendant Butler, which was entered on August 24, 2015. [Doc. No. 14]; [Doc. No. 15]. On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant Butler. [Doc. No. 16].
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is governed by Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55. Upon a showing that a party against whom judgment is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, the clerk must enter the party's default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After the clerk has entered a default, the plaintiff may seek a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). The entry of a default judgment is left to the sound discretion of the court and no party is entitled to a favorable entry of default judgment as a matter of right. See Black v. F & S, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100577, at *6 n.6 (W.D.N.C. 2008) (Voorhees, J.) (citing United States v. Ragin, 113 F.3d 1233, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11827, at *5 (4th Cir.1997)); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir.1986)) see also Advantage Media Group v. Debnam, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62678, at *3 (M.D.N.C. 2011); EMI April Music, Inc. v. White, 618 F. Supp. 2d 497, 505 (E.D. Va. 2009); S.E.C. v. Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418, 421 (D. Md. 2005). Without question, because the American civil litigation system is adversarial by nature, it is the "strong policy" of the Fourth Circuit to decide cases on their merits. See, e.g., Colleton Prep. Academy, Inc. v. Hoover...
To continue reading
Request your trial