Tarver v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 16 August 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2:18-CV-1034-WKW [WO]
• Parties: TIMOTHY W. TARVER, Plaintiff, v. SIBLEY G. REYNOLDS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

TIMOTHY W. TARVER, Plaintiff, v. SIBLEY G. REYNOLDS, Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:18-CV-1034-WKW [WO]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

August 16, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PlaintiffTimothy Tarver has taken the old schoolhouse adage to heart: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."This case started in state court when Timothy divorced Susan Tarver.In a settlement agreement, Timothy agreed to give half of his VA disability benefits to Susan.Judge Sibley G. Reynolds of the Circuit Court of Elmore County is now holding Timothy to his word.Timothy insists that Judge Reynolds cannot do that.But the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has twice affirmed Judge Reynolds, and the Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari both times.

Ever persistent, Timothy wants to make a federal case out of Judge Reynolds's orders.He first tried removing the state action to this court.No dice.Then he filed a new lawsuit against Susan in this court.Ditto.Now he is suing Judge Reynolds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging Judge Reynolds's judicial decisions.But like Timothy's other federal cases, this one is due to be dismissed.

I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Timothy invokes federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.Judge Reynolds argues that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the court lacks jurisdiction.(The court addresses this issue below.)The parties do not dispute personal jurisdiction or venue.

II.STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8: 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'"Wilborn v. Jones, 761 F. App'x 908, 910(11th Cir.2019)(per curiam)(quotingFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2))."To survive 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)(quotingBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570(2007)).

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) can be either a facial attack or a factual attack.Barnett v. Okeechobee Hosp., 283 F.3d 1232, 1237(11th Cir.2002)."If the 12(b)(1) motion represents a facial attack on jurisdiction — that is, the facts as stated supposedly do not provide cause for federal jurisdiction — then the facts alleged by the plaintiff are given the same presumption of truthfulness as they would receive under a 12(b)(6) motion."Id.

III.BACKGROUND

Timothy and Susan Tarver married in 1992.Timothy was in the United States Air Force throughout much of their marriage, though at some point he retired.¹Then in 2010, Timothy petitioned for a divorce in the Circuit Court of Elmore County, Alabama.(No. DR-362.00, Doc. # 1.)²The case was assigned to Judge Reynolds.After some preliminary litigation, Timothy and Susan signed a divorce settlement agreement in May 2012.In that agreement, Timothy agreed to pay Susan half of his retirement benefits, including his Veterans Administration (VA) disability benefits:

The Husband draws a retirement from the Air Force in the present amount of $3,334.00 per month.He as well receives a veteran's disability in the present amount of $2,070.00 per month.As represented by the Husband, there are no other retirement plans.Therefore, the Wife shall receive 50% of the Air Force retirement and 50% of the disability monies and 50% of the Thrift Savings Benefit Plan.Directly as to the Air Force retirement, the Wife is awarded 50% of the Husband's disposable military retired pay.

(No. DR-362.00, Doc. #131, at ¶ 14.)

In June 2012, Judge Reynolds"incorporated" Timothy and Susan's settlement agreement into the final divorce decree "as if set out in full within."(No. DR-362.00, Doc. #141, at ¶ 3.)A month later, Judge Reynolds once again ordered Timothy to assign half of his retirement benefits to Susan.In particular, Judge Reynolds ordered Timothy to pay half of "any amounts [he] received . . . in lieu of disposable retired pay, including . . . any amounts waived . . . to receive [VA disability] benefits."(No. DR-362.00, Doc. #156, at ¶ 15.)Unfortunately, however, years of litigation would rage over those benefits.

A. 2012 to 2015: The First Contempt Proceedings

A few months after the divorce, in October 2012, Susan alleged that Timothy was not giving her half of his VA disability benefits.She asked Judge Reynolds to hold Timothy in contempt based on his failure to pay.(No. DR-362.01, Doc. #1, at ¶ 2.)In October 2013, Judge Reynolds found that Timothy had underpaid Susan, so he ordered Timothy to follow the settlement agreement.(No. DR-361.01, Doc. #65, at ¶¶ 3, 6.)

Timothy responded by arguing that he need not pay Susan any part of his VA disability benefits.(No. DR-362.01, Doc. #75, at ¶ 8.)Timothy insisted that those benefits are "untouchable" as a matter of law.(No. DR-362.01, Doc. # 90, at 4.)All the while, Susan alleged, Timothy kept withholding those benefits from her.(No. DR-362.01, Doc. #78, at ¶ 3.)

In February 2014, Judge Reynolds reaffirmed Timothy's obligations under the settlement agreement, stating that VA disability benefits were still "due as agreed."(No. DR-362.01, Doc. #92, at ¶ 6.)Timothy appealed.(No. DR-362.01, Doc. # 99.)But in December 2014, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals summarily affirmed.SeeTarver v. Tarver, 194 So. 3d 1000(Ala. Ct. App.2014).And in February 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari.SeeEx parte Tarver, 210 So. 3d 1101(Ala.2015).So in March 2015, Timothy fell subject to a $10,201 judgment.(No. DR-362.01, Docs.# 167, 172, 180.)

B. 2015 to 2018: The Second Contempt Proceedings

In November 2015, Susan once again alleged that Timothy refused to pay her half of his VA disability benefits.And again, she asked Judge Reynolds to hold Timothy in contempt.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #1, at ¶ 3.)But this time around, it took two trips to federal court before Judge Reynolds addressed the merits.

The first detour to federal court happened when Timothy removed Susan's contempt petition to this court in December 2015.(No. 15-cv-959, Doc. # 1.)But that case was remanded to state court in March 2016.Because Timothy complained about the effects of a state-court judgment, the court found that it had no jurisdiction.Tarver v. Tarver, No. 15-cv-959, 2016 WL 1167245, at *2(M.D. Ala.Mar. 25, 2016).Undeterred, Timothy sued Susan in this court in August 2016.In that action, Timothy sought a declaratory judgment that he need not pay VA disability benefits to Susan.(No. 16-cv-715, Doc. # 1.)But just as before, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction because a state-court judgment caused the alleged injuries.Tarver v. Tarver, No. 16-cv-715, 2016 WL 7015645, at *3(M.D. Ala.Nov. 30, 2016), motion to vacate denied, 2017 WL 5515896(M.D. Ala.Jan. 12, 2017).Timothy appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, but he voluntarily dismissed that appeal in April 2017.(No. 16-cv-715, Docs.# 21, 26.)

Back in state court, Timothy moved to dismiss Susan's contempt petition.He argued that his VA disability benefits were not assignable and that Judge Reynolds lacked jurisdiction.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #51, at ¶¶ 3, 6.)Judge Reynolds rejected those arguments in June 2017.(See DR-362.02, Doc. # 84.)The same month, Judge Reynolds held Timothy in contempt for failing to pay Susan half of his VA disability benefits.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #86, at ¶ 1.)He entered a $27,853 judgment against Timothy and ordered him to make all future payments.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #86, at ¶¶ 1-2.)

Timothy appealed.(No. DR-362.02, Docs.# 92.)But the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals summarily affirmed in May 2018, and the Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari in September 2018.(No. DR-362.02, Docs.# 150, 151, 152.)

While Timothy's appeal was before the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the Circuit Court of Geneva County garnished his bank account.(No. DR-362.02, Docs.# 98, 99, 104, 105.)Timothy moved to stay the garnishment and to recover the garnished funds.Predictably, he argued that his VA disability benefits were exempt from garnishment.He also argued that he had not received procedural due process (notice and an opportunity to be heard) before the garnishment.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #114, at ¶ 5-7;No. DR-362.02, Doc. #123, at ¶¶ 4, 12-13.)Judge Reynolds granted a stay and released the garnished funds once Timothy posted a supersedeas bond.(No. DR-362.02, Docs.# 126, 141, 143.)But on November 12, 2018, after the Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari, Judge Reynolds ordered that Susan receive the supersedeas bond funds.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #163, at ¶ 2.)

C. 2018 to Present: The Third Contempt Proceedings

At the same time he awarded the bond funds to Susan, Judge Reynolds set a hearing for December 12, 2018, on the chance Timothy did not make them available.(No. DR-362.02, Doc. #163, at ¶ 3.)Just a week later, on November 19, Timothy moved for relief from the many court orders that instruct him to split VA disability benefits with Susan.He argued (yet again) that Judge Reynolds entered those orders without having subject-matter jurisdiction.(No. DR-362.03, Doc. # 29, at 11, 13.)Then on December 7, Susan filed another contempt petition.In addition to alleging that Timothy still refused to pay her any VA disability benefits, Susan also alleged that Timothy had, "by methods of trickery and deceit," taken the supersedeas bond funds from the courthouse.(No. DR-362.04, Doc. #1, at ¶¶ 3-4.)

On December 11, 2018 — one day before the prescheduled contempt hearing — Timothy filed this lawsuit against Judge Reynolds.(No. 18-cv-1034, Doc. # 1.)At the same time, he moved in state court to recuse Judge Reynolds.(No. DR-362.03, Doc. # 52.)Judge Reynolds soon continued the ...