Stevens v. Town of Snow Hill
| Decision Date | 08 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:19-CV-156-D,4:19-CV-156-D |
| Parties | JOANN ARTIS STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SNOW HILL, N.C., COUNTY OF GREENE, N.C., and LENOIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND FOUNDATION, N.C., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
On October 31, 2019, Joann Artis Stevens ("Stevens" or "plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in an action against the Town of Snow Hill, N.C. ("Snow Hill"), County of Greene, N.C. ("Greene County"), and Lenoir Community College and Foundation, N.C. ("LCC") (collectively, "defendants") [D.E. 1]. On September 17, 2020, Stevens filed a complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245, and North Carolina state law [D.E. 10]. On October 19, 2020, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.'s Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"), granted Stevens's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed Stevens's claims arising under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245 [D.E. 9, 12]. On January 11, 2021, LCC moved to dismiss Stevens's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 31], and filed a memorandum and exhibits in support [D.E. 32]. On January 13, 2021, Greene County and Snow Hill also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim [D.E. 36, 37], and filed respective memoranda and exhibits in support [D.E. 35, 38]. On February 4, 2021, Stevens responded in opposition to LCC [D.E. 40]. The following day, Stevens responded in opposition to Snow Hill and Greene County and filed exhibits in support [D.E. 41, 42].1 On February 18, 2021, LCC replied [D.E. 43]. The following day, Snow Hill replied [D.E. 44]. On April 13, 2021, Stevens moved for entry of default judgment against Greene County [D.E. 45]. On April 14, 2021, Greene County responded in opposition [D.E. 46]. As explained below, the court grants defendants' motions to dismiss, denies Stevens's motion for entry of default judgment, and dismisses Stevens's complaint.
Stevens's claims center around her desire to lead community development and historical preservation efforts concerning the historic Rosenwald School in Snow Hill, North Carolina. See [D.E. 10] 4-5. In 1997, the Greene County Board of Education deeded land containing the school building, a baseball field, and various other buildings to LCC. See [D.E. 32-1, 35-2]. On July 1, 2004, LCC leased the Rosenwald school to William Warren ("Warren"). See [D.E. 32-3]. In October 2013, LCC terminated Warren's lease due to the hazardous condition of the building. See [D.E. 32-4, 32-5].
Stevens alleges that she acted as the chief executive officer of the Rosenwald Center, a community development organization in Snow Hill. See Compl. [D.E. 10-1] 2-3. Stevens claims that the Rosenwald school building was "given to [Stevens] by Greene County Board of Education in 1999 after Hurricane Floyd[.]" Id. at 5. According to Stevens, in 2004, LCC locked Stevens out of her office in the Rosenwald school building. See id. at 3, 10. Stevens also alleges that on October 14, 2019, she was not permitted to speak at a public forum held by Snow Hill. See id. at 8-10.
Stevens names LCC, Greene County, and Snow Hill as defendants. See [D.E. 10] 3. In count four, Stevens seeks relief against all defendants for violating her right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. See Compl. at 8-9. In count five, Stevens seeks relief for defamation against all defendants. See id. at 9-10. In count six, Stevens seeks relief for "discrimination and failure to consider" against all defendants. Id. at 10-11. In count seven, Stevens seeks relief for interference with prospective economic advantage against all defendants. See id. at 11. Stevens seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. See id. at 12-13; [D.E. 10] 4.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's legal and factual sufficiency. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-63 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd, 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation omitted); see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302. In considering the motion, the court must construe the facts and reasonable inferences "in the light most favorable to [the nonmoving party]." Massey v. Ojaniit, 759 F.3d 343, 352 (4th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted); see Clatterbuck v. City of Charlottesville, 708 F.3d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). A court need not accept as true a complaint's legal conclusions, "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Rather, a plaintiff's factual allegations must "nudge[] [her] claims," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, beyond the realm of "mere possibility" into "plausibility." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
The standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of the pleading is flexible, "and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Erickson, however, does not "undermine [the] requirement that a pleading contain 'more than labels and conclusions.'" Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 304 n.5 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-83; Coleman, 626 F.3d at 190; Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2009); Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court considers the pleadings and any materials "attached or incorporated into the complaint." E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 637 F.3d at 448; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); Thompson v. Greene, 427 F.3d 263, 268 (4th Cir. 2005). A court also may consider a document submitted by a moving party if it is "integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document's authenticity" without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Goines, 822 F.3d at 166. "[I]n the event of conflict between the bare allegations of the complaint and any exhibit attached . . . , the exhibit prevails." Id. (quotation omitted); see Fayetteville Invs. v. Com. Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991). Additionally, a court may take judicial notice of public records. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 201; Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009).
Defendants' motions to dismiss require the court to consider North Carolina state law claims. Accordingly, this court must predict how the Supreme Court of North Carolina would rule on any disputed state law issues. See Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt Beverage Co. of S.C., 433 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 2005). In doing so, the court must look first to opinions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. See id.; Parkway 1046, LLC v. U.S. Home Corp., 961 F.3d 301, 306 (4thCir. 2020); Stahle v. CTS Corp., 817 F.3d 96, 100 (4th Cir. 2016). If there are no governing opinions from that court, this court may consider the opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, treatises, and "the practices of other states." Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 433 F.3d at 369 (quotation omitted).2 In predicting how the highest court of a state would address an issue, this court must "follow the decision of an intermediate state appellate court unless there [are] persuasive data that the highest court would decide differently." Toloczko, 728 F.3d at 398 (quotation omitted); see Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 630 & n.3 (1988). Moreover, in predicting how the highest court of a state would address an issue, this court "should not create or expand a [s]tate's public policy." Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship v. Carteret-Craven Elec. Membership Corp., 506 F.3d 304, 314 (4th Cir. 2007) (alteration and quotation omitted); see Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3, 4 (1975) (per curiam); Wade v. Danek Med., Inc., 182 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 1999).
Stevens argues that defendants violated her First Amendment rights at a public forum that Snow Hill held on October 14, 2019. See Compl. at 8-9. Stevens alleges that she was speaking and a representative of "Greene County Training School/South Greene High School Alumni" interrupted her. Id. at 8. Snow Hill then closed the forum and Stevens waited outside. When the meeting resumed, Stevens allegedly was "ignored, and not acknowledged at all by Defendant [] Snow Hill." Id. at 8-9.
"To state a claim under [section] 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation wascommitted by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); see Philips, 572 F.3d at 180. Additionally, a section 1983 plaintiff must allege the personal involvement of a defendant. See, e.g., Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985).
In order to state a First Amendment retaliation claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: "(1) [s]he engaged in protected First Amendment activity, (2) the defendant took some action that adversely affected [her] First Amendment rights, and (3) there was a causal relationship between [her] protected activity and the defendant's conduct." Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2017) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial