Tannehill v. Tannehill
| Decision Date | 23 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-00242 |
| Parties | NICHOLAS TANNEHILL, SR., Plaintiff v. CASSANDRA TANNEHILL, ET AL., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss, filed by Defendants Gregory G. Elias, Esq. ("Elias") (Doc. 4), Cassandra Tannehill ("Mrs. Tannehill") (Doc. 7), and Defendants Judges B. Scott Leehy ("Leehy"), Frederic C. Amman, III ("Amman"), Carl V. Sharp ("Sharp"), Robert C. Johnson ("Johnson"), and Hearing Officer Lisa T. Sullivan ("Sullivan") (collectively "the judges") (Doc. 12), respectively. Elias and Mrs. Tannehill also filed Motions for Attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). (Docs. 4, 7). Pro se Plaintiff Nicholas Tannehill ("Tannehill") responded in opposition to Elias' motions and Mrs. Tannehill's motions. (Docs. 17, 18). Tannehill did not file an opposition to the judges's motions.
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Tannehill's official capacity claims against the judges, and because Tannehill fails to state a plausible claim for relief against the judges in their individual capacities, the judges' Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 12) should be GRANTED. Because Tannehill fails to state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983, and because the Younger abstention doctrine is appropriate in this case, Elias's and Mrs. Tannehill's Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 4, 7) should be GRANTED. The Court in its discretion should DENY Elias's and Mrs. Tannehill's Motions for Attorney Fees (Docs. 4, 7).
Tannehill, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Tannehill names as Defendants Mrs. Tannehill and the judges (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. 1).1 The judges are all judicial officers of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. (Doc. 1). Tannehill also names Defendants "John and Jane Does 1-100." (Doc. 1). Tannehill asserts personal and subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1367, for violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with child custody and support proceedings. (Doc. 1).
Tannehill alleges he married Mrs. Tannehill in October 2001. He and Mrs. Tannehill had two children born of their marriage. (Doc. 1). Mrs. Tannehill filed for divorce on or about October 16, 2012. (Doc. 1). Mrs. Tannehill filed for full custody in April of 2013. (Doc. 1). Tannehill filed a motion to modify custody and child support in June of 2014, which was never ruled on, well into 2016, when his attorney withdrew. (Doc. 1). Tannehill further claims he was arrested in 2016 by Leehy for delinquent child support, despite the pending motion to modify child support. (Doc. 1). Tannehill argues this violated his right to due process. (Doc. 1).
Tannehill claims Defendants callously and maliciously acted with intent to prevent him from being an active parent with his minor children. (Doc. 1). Tannehill further claims Mrs. Tannehill is conspiring with the aid of her attorney, Elias, to violate his parental rights. (Doc. 1). Tannehill further alleges Sullivan, Sharp, Johnson, Leehy, and Amman ignored the laws and interfered with his ability and privilege to have "unfettered parenting time with his children." (Doc. 1).
Tannehill claims he suffered physically and mentally because of Defendants actions. (Doc. 1). Tannehill asserts a violation of his constitutional rights, misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. 1). Tannehill claims Mrs. Tannehill acted intentionally and recklessly, and in an extreme and outrageous manner, causing severe emotional distress. (Doc. 1). Tannehill claims Defendants' reckless and malicious behavior robbed him of time with his children, adversely affecting his emotional and physical well-being for the rest of his life. (Doc. 1).
Tannehill also claims Elias breached the attorney ethics standards and Rules of Professional Conduct by encouraging Mrs. Tannehill to make false statements, file frivolous pleadings, and interfere with his "parenting time," contributing to violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1). Tannehill further claims Elias willfully and purposefully withheld evidence showing Mrs. Tannehill had a history of deceit and nefarious behaviors creating a bias in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1).
Tannehill claims Mrs. Tannehill has repeatedly denied him time and access to his children, and is guilty of interference with custody and visitation. (Doc. 1). Tannehill asserts Elias encouraged the actions that caused a violation of his parental rights. (Doc. 1). Tannehill alleges Sullivan, Sharp, Johnson, Leehy, and Amman, refused to abide by, and enforce, the law, and empowered Mrs. Tannehill to prevent him from parenting, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1). Tannehill further alleges custodial interference under La. R.S. 14:45.1. (Doc. 1).
Tannehill alleges Mrs. Tannehill provided false testimony to government and judicial agencies that was defamatory and damaging to his reputation. (Doc. 1). Tannehill claims Elias encouraged Mrs. Tannehill's "evil objective to prevent [him] from being a parent to [his] children." (Doc. 1). Tannehill alleges a claim of negligent misrepresentation against Elias and Mrs. Tannehill. (Doc. 1). Tannehill further alleges intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. (Doc. 1). Tannehill seeks a declaratory judgment,2 statutory damages, punitive damages, and compensatory damages. (Doc. 1).
Defendants responded with Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 4, 7. 12), and Motions for Attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (Docs. 4, 7). Elias attaches his declaration in support of his motions. (Doc. 4-2).3 Defendantsassert this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) for the following reasons: (1) domestic relations exception; (2) Rooker-Feldman doctrine;4 (3) absolute immunity of judges; (4) lack of federal question jurisdiction; and (5) lack of diversity jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. (Docs. 4, 7, 12). Defendants assert the Court should abstain from assuming jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (Doc. 1). Elias and Mrs. Tannehill assert, in the alternative, that Tannehill fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). (Docs. 4, 7, 12). Defendants move for recovery of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). (Docs. 4, 7, 12).
Tannehill opposed both Elias's and Mrs. Tannehill's motions dismiss. (Docs. 17, 18). Tannehill asserts he sufficiently states a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). (Docs. 17, 18). Tannehill asserts that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the abstention doctrine are not applicable, as his claim asserts damages for a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Docs. 17, 18). For that same reason, Tannehill claims this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. (Docs. 17, 18). Tannehill claims Elias does not have absolute immunity and that the judges do not have judicial immunity. (Docs. 17, 18). Tannehill further asserts that no attorney fees should be awarded under the "American Rule." (Docs. 17, 18).
Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). "A motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction should only be granted if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claims entitling him to relief." In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 287 (5th Cir. 2012). "Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction." Id. A district court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on any one of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts. Willoughby v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 730 F.3d 476, 479 (5th Cir. 2013). Generally, "when a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits." Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161.
The standard for review of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is the same as that for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Harrison v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 2007 WL 1244268, at *3 (E.D. La. 2007).
A court may grant a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A pleading states a claim for relief when, inter alia, it contains a "short and plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
To withstand a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true," to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when it contains sufficient factual content for the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Plausibility does not equate to possibility or probability; it lies somewhere in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls for enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the elements of the claim. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial