Varela v. Hill

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,Missouri
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 4:23-cv-01016-SEP
• Decision Date: 28 March 2024
• Citation: Varela v. Hill, 4:23-cv-01016-SEP (E.D. Mo. Mar 28, 2024)
• Parties: ERNESTO VARELA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM HAROLD HILL, et al., Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Family Law,Civil Procedure

1

ERNESTO VARELA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM HAROLD HILL, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:23-cv-01016-SEP

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 28, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendant William Harold Hill, Doc. [8], Defendants John Doe Officers, Doc. [4], Defendant St. Louis County Police Department, Doc. [2] and Defendants City of Wildwood and Molly Proost, Doc. [9]. The motions are denied in part and granted in part as set forth below.

Facts and Background^[1]

Plaintiffs Ernesto and Claudia Varela moved to a residence on Lindy Lane in Wildwood, Missouri so their son could attend Parkway West in the Special School District of St. Louis County. Doc. [7] ¶¶ 21-23. Plaintiffs' son, O.M., is deaf, and the teachers and staff at Parkway West met O.M.'s educational needs. Id. ¶¶ 21-24. The Varelas were “thrilled” with the neighborhood and school until late 2016, when their relationship with their neighbor soured. Id. ¶¶ 24-25, 56. The neighbor, Defendant William Harold Hill, believed that the school bus that picked up O.M. would cause traffic congestion and damage on Lindy Lane, so he complained to the school district, and for a while an express medical transport was sent to pick O.M. up instead. Id. ¶¶ 26-30. When the Varelas requested that the bus resume picking up O.M., Hill “became infuriated and began making racial slurs and threats to the Varelas.” Id. ¶ 33. According to the Varelas, thus began a years-long campaign of racially motivated harassment. Id. ¶¶ 38-41, 55-56.

The Varelas are Hispanic and Latino Americans. Id. ¶ 40. Mr. Hill referred to the Varelas as “wetbacks” and repeatedly yelled racist remarks when they exited their home. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. He threatened them, told Mr. Varela he would “kick his ass,” informed them that he owned guns, and occasionally cleaned his guns outside within eyeshot of the Varelas' property. Id. ¶¶ 42, 49. Hill also called social services and falsely reported that the Varelas abused O.M. Id. ¶ 50. He posted online that the Varelas were offering free mechanical services at their residence, causing strangers to come to their home requesting mechanical repairs. Id. ¶¶ 72-73. Because of Hill's actions, the Varelas moved on July 14, 2018. Id. ¶ 55. On the day they moved Mr. Hill threatened Mr. Varela and called the family “wetbacks.” Id. ¶ 58.

Between late 2016 and July 14, 2018, the Varelas reported the threats, harassment, and racial slurs to the Defendant St Louis County Police Department (“Police Department”) on multiple occasions. Id. ¶ 57. Police responded to the Varelas' calls but never made any arrests. Id. ¶¶ 60, 65. If the Varelas recorded their interactions with police, the police went to Hill's residence to speak with him. Id. ¶¶ 66-67. The Varelas informed police that they were willing to press charges and to prosecute. Id. ¶ 70. The Varelas were often referred to Defendant Officer Jamie Reiter, the neighborhood police officer at the time. Id. ¶¶ 81, 84. At times, Reiter and other police officers attempted to persuade the Varelas not to press charges. Id. ¶¶ 71, 74. The officers occasionally yelled at the Varelas, and some told them to stop calling the police or they would be arrested. Id. ¶¶ 80, 83. After the Varelas called the police multiple times, however, the police made a report of the incidents and indicated that they would apply for charges against Hill. Id. ¶ 86. For reasons unknown to the Varelas, the City of Wildwood prosecutor, Defendant Molly Proost, chose not to prosecute Hill for his actions. Id. ¶¶ 90, 96.

On July 12, 2023, the Varelas filed a petition in state court. See Doc. [7]. The case was removed to federal court on August 16, 2023. Doc. [1]. Although the Varelas were initially represented by counsel, they are now proceeding pro se. Their petition-now a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(1)-asserts the following claims: Counts I through III are against Defendant Hill. Count I alleges that Hill denied Plaintiffs the full and equal benefits of their leasing contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Doc. [7] ¶¶ 99-109. Count II alleges that Hill denied the Varelas their right to enjoy their leased property under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. Id. ¶¶ 11020. Count III alleges that Hill interfered with the Varelas' enjoyment of their rights under the Fair Housing Act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3617. Id. ¶¶ 121-30. Counts IV and V are claims against Officer Jamie Reiter and the John Doe Officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count IV alleges violations of the Varelas' rights to police protection under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, id. ¶¶ 131-44, and Count V alleges a conspiracy to violate the Varelas' civil rights. Id. ¶¶ 145-49. Count VI is a Monell claim against the City of Wildwood, the Police Department, Officer Reiter, John Doe Officers, and Molly Proost. Id. ¶¶ 150-59; see Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, (1978). Count VII alleges that Defendants Wildwood and the Police Department failed to use ordinary care in supervising the police force. Id. ¶¶ 160-67. Count VIII is a § 1983 claim against Defendant Molly Proost, alleging that Proost violated the Varelas' Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. Id. ¶¶ 168-81. And Count IX asserts a common law abuse of process claim against Proost. Id. ¶¶ 182-91.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), courts shall not dismiss any complaint that states a facially plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint is plausible on its face when the pleaded facts allow the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable. Id. at 678. The Court views all facts and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725, 734 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Aten v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 818, 820 (8th Cir. 2008)). The Court must accept the facts alleged as true, “even if doubtful.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'” Id. (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

Courts liberally construe complaints filed by laypeople. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). “[I]f the essence of an allegation is discernible,” the court should “construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)). But even pro se complaints “must allege facts, which if true, state a claim as a matter of law.” Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). Federal courts are not required to assume facts that are not alleged, Stone, 364 F.3d at 914-15, nor are they required to interpret procedural rules “to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

Discussion

I. Defendant Hill's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

A. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against Defendant Hill under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because no contractual relationship exists between them and Hill.

Count I alleges that Defendant Hill violated Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981(a) provides:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens ....

The statute defines “make and enforce contracts” to include “the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(b). The Supreme Court has long “construed [§ 1981] to forbid all ‘racial' discrimination in the making of private as well as public contracts.” Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 609 (1987). “Section 1981 offers relief when racial discrimination blocks the creation of a contractual relationship, as well as when racial discrimination impairs an existing contractual relationship, so long as the plaintiff has or would have rights under the existing or proposed contractual relationship.” Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 476 (2006). “Any claim brought under § 1981 . . . must initially identify an impaired ‘contractual relationship' . . . under which the plaintiff has rights.” Id. A plaintiff must also establish that “but for” the plaintiff's race, he would have received the same rights as a white person. Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of African American-Owned Media, 140 S.Ct. 1009, 1015 (2020).

In McDonald, McDonald, a Black man, acted as an agent for his company in negotiating a contract with Domino's Pizza. 546 U.S. at 472, 475. When Domino's broke that contract, McDonald sued under § 1981, arguing that Domino's breached the contract because of racial animus toward McDonald. Id. at 473. The Court found that although McDonald had identified a contractual relationship between his company and Domino's, as an agent of the company, McDonald himself had “no rights and [was] exposed to no liability under the corporation's contracts.” Id. at 477. The Court noted that if it allowed McDonald to sue Domino's under a contract that he was not a party to, it would permit “[a]ny person who is an ‘actual target' of discrimination and who loses some...