Talbot v. Utah
| Decision Date | 05 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-00079-DN-PK |
| Parties | LANNY KAY TALBOT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF UTAH, GOVERNOR GARY R. HERBERT, UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL SEAN D. REYES, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, TOM PEREZ, JUDGE BRODY KEISEL, and HOLLY RAMSAY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Defendants State of Utah, Governor Gary R. Herbert, Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes, Judge Brody Keisel and Holly Ramsay ("State Defendants"), move to dismiss Plaintiff Lanny Kay Talbot's complaint in its entirety based on his failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ("State Defendants' Motion").1 State Defendants' Motion is based on the Younger abstention doctrine, judicial immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, the failure to file a notice of claim as required by the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, and the failure to state involvement by Governor Herbert or Utah Attorney General Reyes.
Plaintiff opposes the State Defendants' Motion2 and moves for injunctive relief in his pending state divorce case due to jurisdictional issues and Fourteenth Amendment issues("Plaintiff's Motion to Stay").3 He also moves for dismissal of his pending state divorce case due to satisfaction of judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss").4
State Defendants' Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss are DENIED.
Talbot is a party in an ongoing divorce case that began with his filing of a divorce petition against his wife, Marie Talbot, in 2008.5 A decree of divorce was entered by then-assigned Judge Paul Lyman of the Utah Sixth District Court later that year.6 On November 10, 2011 Talbot was found in contempt of court by Judge Lyman for not abiding by an insurance requirement of the decree.7 Attorney's fees were awarded to Marie Talbot along with an order that Talbot comply within two weeks.8 Several more years of proceedings went by, and the case was reassigned to Judge Keisel.9 Talbot was eventually found in contempt again on October 5, 2018 for not complying with the insurance requirement, not paying the attorney's fees, and not paying the judgment amount in the divorce decree.10
Talbot filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2018 and the case proceeded through the Utah Court of Appeals.11 The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's contempt order, and Talbot filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Utah Supreme Court.12 The Writ was denied on May 30, 2019.13 The District Court scheduled a review for June 13, 2019, but Talbot did not appear.14 Judge Keisel then scheduled an Order to Show Cause hearing for July 11, 2019.15 Talbot again failed to appear, and Judge Keisel issued a $1,000 cash only warrant.16 Talbot was booked into jail on the warrant, posted the $1,000 cash bail, and a hearing was held on August 8, 2019.17 of the August 8, 2019 hearing, the bail was forfeited to Marie Talbot and a Writ of Execution was scheduled.18 An evidentiary hearing on the Writ of Execution is currently scheduled for March 16, 2020.19
In reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court assumes the truth of well-pleaded facts and draws reasonable inference in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.20 But a claim survives only if "there is plausibility in the complaint."21 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."22 Threadbare recitals of elements, facts "merelyconsistent" with liability, "labels and conclusions," or "unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]" are insufficient.23
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, this Court may rely on the facts as alleged in the complaint, but may also rely on all documents adopted by reference in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, or facts that may be judicially noticed.24In the context of a motion to dismiss, this Court may take judicial notice of a state court docket and filings.25
The Younger abstention doctrine applies to bar the claims against all State Defendants, including the State of Utah, Governor Herbert, Utah Attorney General Reyes, Judge Keisel and Ramsay. To the extent there are state tort claims, the Plaintiff's failure to file a Notice of Claim bars these claims. Additionally, the doctrine of judicial immunity bars the claims against Judge Keisel and Ramsay. Also, Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the claims against the State, and the State is not a "person" who can be sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Finally, there is no stated involvement by Governor Herbert and Utah Attorney General Reyes so the claims against them are barred.
Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case where there is an ongoing state action.26 The Supreme Court in Younger held that a federal court should not enjoin an ongoing state criminal court proceeding, and the doctrine has been expanded to include administrative and civil actions.27
"Younger abstention dictates that federal courts not interfere with state court proceedings by granting equitable relief—such as injunctions of important state proceedings or declaratory judgments regarding constitutional issues in those proceedings—when such relief could adequately be sought before the state court."28The three elements required for abstention are:
(1) there is an ongoing state criminal, civil or administrative proceeding; (2) the state court provides an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint; and (3) the state proceedings involve important state interests, matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies.29
Younger abstention is non-discretionary; it must be invoked when the three conditions are satisfied, absent extraordinary circumstances.
All of the Younger abstention factors are present here. First, the state court proceedings are ongoing. Talbot's divorce proceedings are alive, subject to modification, and appeal. In fact, an evidentiary hearing on the Writ of Execution is currently scheduled for March 16, 2020. So, the first Younger factor is satisfied.
Second, the state proceedings provide an adequate forum to hear the claims. The divorce case history demonstrates contentious divorce proceedings, with litigation over insurance, property, and the divorce decree judgement. Talbot has already appealed the trial court's contempt order of October 5, 2018 to the Utah Court of Appeals, and filed a Writ of Certiorari with the Utah Supreme Court. Although he may not have been satisfied with the results, "[t]he fact that [a plaintiff] has not obtained the relief he seeks in state court does not mean that he has not had an adequate opportunity to present his federal claims in the state court proceedings."30 Further, with proceedings in the trial court ongoing, Talbot is at liberty to appeal again after further trial court rulings. A "necessary concomitant of Younger is that a party ... must exhaust [its] state appellate remedies before seeking relief in the [U.S.] District Court . . . ."31 The bottom line is that, whether in the trial court or appellate courts, the state court provides an adequate forum.
Finally, there are important state interests involved in the state trial court proceedings, which involve family law. "[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States."32 The state has a strong interest in regulating marriage, divorce, child custody, and related disputes.33 Utah state interests are compelling, and thus the third Younger factor is satisfied. Thus the Younger abstention doctrine applies to bar Talbot's claims.
The Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 7, "governs all claims against governmental entities or against their employees or agents arising out of the performance of the employee's duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority."34 Under the Immunity Act, before a claimant may file a lawsuit against an employee of the State of Utah, the claimant must comply with the Utah Governmental Immunity Act's notice of claim requirements.35 Those requirements mandate that "[a]ny person having a claim against a governmental entity ... or ... [its] employee ... shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action ...."36 Utah courts have "consistently and uniformly held that suit may not be brought against the State or its subdivisions unless the requirements of the Governmental Immunity Act are strictly followed."37 "Failure to strictly comply with these requirements results in a lack of [subject matter] jurisdiction."38
The act Talbot complains of—adjudicating his divorce case—is undoubtedly within the scope of employment of government employees.39 Talbot has not filed a notice of claim with the State. Therefore, to the extent he brings his claims under state tort law, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
It is well-settled that judges are shielded with absolute immunity from lawsuits for money damages based on their judicial action, including suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and forlawsuits based on state law.40 The doctrine of judicial immunity ensures "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."41
The rationale for this defense is to incorporate traditional common-law immunities and to allow...
To continue reading
Request your trial