Tate v. Comrie
| Decision Date | 21 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 5:16CV3090 |
| Parties | PHILLIP TATE, Plaintiff, v. AYANA COMRIE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
(Resolving Docs. 6, 12, 17, 19-23)
Pending before this Court are eight motions: 1) Motion to dismiss for failure to state claim filed by Defendants Ayana Comrie and Bernard Rochford (Doc. 6); 2) Defendant William Macchione's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 12); 3) Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendant Duane Crabbs (Doc. 17); 4) Motion to strike affidavit and documents from Plaintiff's reply and opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Comrie and Rochford (Doc. 19); 5) Motion to strike Plaintiff's affidavit filed by Defendant Crabbs (Doc. 20); 6) Motion to strike Plaintiff's affidavit filed by Defendant Macchione (Doc. 21); 7) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file attached Amended Complaint (Doc. 22); and 8) Motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim filed by Defendants Comrie and Rochford (Doc. 23). After reviewing the Complaint in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds as follows:
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Looking to the facts presented in the underlying Complaint and accepting the well-pled factual allegations as true, in the mid-1980s, Plaintiff was convicted of rape. Doc. 1 at ¶¶13-19. While he disputes the conviction, the Plaintiff served 25 years in prison as a result. During his time incarcerated and upon his release, he became recognized for his advocacy work on behalf of other prisoners and for his contributions to non-profit organizations focused on "ex-offender reentry." Doc. 1 at ¶¶21-23.
In 2011, Plaintiff became involved in the Summit County Reentry Network ("SCRN"), when he was invited to participate on SCRN's Strategic Planning, Employment and Training, and Education subcommittees. Doc. 1 at ¶22. SCRN "is comprised of over 70 government, non-profit and faith-based organizations that offer some type of reentry service for consumers." Doc. 1 at Ex. A. Plaintiff attended weekly SCRN peer support group meetings. Doc. 1 at ¶2.
Defendant Duane Crabbs is the co-founder of the South Street Ministries, as well as the host of, and a partner, in SCRN's weekly peer support group meetings at The Front Porch Café (at times "The Front Porch"). Doc. 1 at ¶6. The Front Porch Café is a place where "ex-offenders, their families, and community stakeholders traditionally congregate for resources, information-sharing, employment leads, mentoring and peer support to assist in their successful reintegration into society." Doc. 1 at ¶6.
Defendant William Macchione works for the Summit County Department of Job and Family Services ("Job and Family Services") and serves on SCRN's Executive Subcommittee. Doc. 1 at ¶4. Defendant Bernard Rochford works for Oriana House, Inc., "a Summit County community-based correctional conglomerate which [has various]...governmental contracts for its services as a[n]...assorted service provider to the recovering and reentering populations." Doc. 1 at ¶5. Rochford also serves on SCRN's Executive Subcommittee. Doc. 1 at ¶5.
Through SCRN, Plaintiff also met Defendant Ayana Comrie, who was "a contract employee of Oriana House, Inc." and later served as the SCRN Reentry Coordinator. Doc. 1 at ¶3. She was "directly responsible for the management, administration and leadership of SCRN staff, subcommittee volunteers, and related operations." Doc. 1 at ¶3. Plaintiff and Comrie developed a familiar relationship in which they would meet outside SCRN functions and communicate with one another by phone and text. Doc. 1 at ¶39. Comrie called Plaintiff on several occasions to assist in getting her fireplace repaired, transport her to and from the airport, and respond when her vehicle broke down on the side of the road. Doc. 1 at ¶¶40-42. Comrie also started a for-profit company and asked Plaintiff to serve as its statutory agent. Doc. 1 at ¶45, Ex. I-3.
In late 2015, Comrie was promoted to the position of SCRN Reentry Coordinator. The friendly relationship with the Plaintiff then began to sour. Doc. 1 at ¶¶59-73. Plaintiff disagreed with the functioning of the SCRN board and re-entry programming. He and Comrie had a disagreement, which resulted in their ceasing all personal communications for several months. Doc. 1 at ¶¶59-72. Meanwhile, a non-party, Bobbi Snider, was hired as Comrie's assistant at the Oriana House. Doc. 1 at ¶62. Several months passed and Comrie and the Plaintiff resumed their communication at re-entry meetings.
In the summer of 2016, Comrie and Snider alleged that Plaintiff sent them text messages that constituted sexual harassment, stalking, and "improper behavior." Doc. 1 at Ex. P. Consequently, Plaintiff alleges that "...Macchione conspired with Defendants Comrie, Rochford, and Crabbs by unilaterally going to Plaintiffs' [sic] employer and 'the sheriff' whom he wielded some type of power...to ban the plaintiff from its premises and foreclosing [sic] on any means of plaintiff participating in SCRN or accessing any of the publicly available resources centralized at [Ohio Means Jobs] Center." Doc. 1 at ¶100.
As set forth in an attachment to Plaintiff's Complaint, in August of 2016, Plaintiff was copied on an e-mail written by his supervisor at Heart to Heart Ministries to Macchione and Crabbs, confirming her meeting with them to discuss the allegations by Comrie and Snider. Doc. 1 at Ex. P. The supervisor stated that she "would inform [Plaintiff] to not go to the Front Porch or to the SCRN committee meeting." Doc. 1 at Ex. P. She also confirmed that "...after talking with [Plaintiff] today, he shared that his father passed away suddenly and due to other personal reasons he was resigning effective immediately." Doc. 1 at Ex. P.
Plaintiff pro se filed the underlying action against Comrie, Macchione, Crabbs, and Rochford. Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of his constitutionalrights under the First and Fourteen Amendments related to an alleged abridgment of his freedom of speech, expressive association, equal protection, conspiracy, and a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. He also alleges a claim entitled "Vagueness." In his Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, along with compensatory and punitive damages.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Each of the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Doc. 6, 12, 17. For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.
"For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment." Southern Ohio Bank v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 479 F.2d 478, 480 (6th Cir.1973). But a court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences." Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir.1999)..
Although this pleading standard does not require is insufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint will not "suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.' " Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter...to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Facial plausibility isestablished "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "The plausibility of an inference depends on a host of considerations, including common sense and the strength of competing explanations for the defendant's conduct." Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d at 504 (citations omitted).
Kendell v. Peng, 2:16-CV-221, 2016 WL 4239927, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2016). "[M]atters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint[ ] also may be taken into account." Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting Nieman v. NLO, Inc., 108 F.3d 1546, 1554 (6th Cir.1997)) (emphasis omitted).
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants restrained his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expressive...
To continue reading
Request your trial