Von Fox v. Coll. of Charleston, Case No. 2:17-cv-483-RMG-MGB

• Decision Date: 21 June 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:17-cv-483-RMG-MGB
• Parties: Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff, v. College of Charleston, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

Glynndeavin von Fox, Plaintiff, v. College of Charleston, Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-483-RMG-MGB

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

June 21, 2017

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On December 13, 2016, Glynndeavin von Fox ("Plaintiff") filed this civil action, construed as an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the College of Charleston ("Defendant") in state court. (See Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016-CP-10-06662). Plaintiff is a non-prisoner litigant and is proceeding pro se. Defendant removed the case to federal court (DE# 1, Notice of Removal) and moved for dismissal (DE# 8, Motion to Dismiss). After issuance of a Roseboro Order (DE# 9), Plaintiff filed a "Response" (DE# 15, totaling 362 pages with exhibits). Defendant filed a "Reply" (DE#16). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply without leave (DE# 17) and a letter with exhibits (DE# 18) regarding his psychological evaluation and competency to stand trial in pending state criminal proceedings.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to submit findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge. Upon careful review, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss" be granted, and that the Complaint (DE# 1) be dismissed, with prejudice, for the following reasons:

I. The Present Lawsuit

Plaintiff, who is not enrolled as a student at the College of Charleston, has sued the College because he received a trespass notice.¹ Plaintiff's entire statement of the case consists of the following (verbatim):

College of Charleston trespass notice was given on the 6th of September 2016 as Glynndeavin von Fox was in the process of self-service of a summons and complaint regarding the Charleston County Judicial Department. This trespass notice was given without any reasoning or documentary evidence of actual physical appearance of Glynndeavin von Fox on the College of Charleston property without an ability to access. The only issue that could have occurred is when Glynndeavin von Fox was accused of sleeping in the Starbucks of the Addlestone Library, and the issue at the Starbucks is utterly false. With no cause being given by the College of Charleston other than a rambling notion about student conduct at a college within the South Carolina flagship over watch of the university of South Carolina that is riddled with numerous drug violations and student conduct of abusive natures, and the fact that Glynndeavin von Fox has never had a relationship with any College of Charleston student or fraternity other than required by professors in course environments.

It is simply a false statement under South Carolina Code of Law Title 16, Chapter 3, Article 13, Section 16-3-1280. I look to this honorable court to hear the fact that as Glynndeavin von Fox has the College of Charleston in the United States of America Supreme Court process, they simple cannot stop harassment of Glynndeavin von Fox based on his national origin name and Native American status with the State of South Carolina. I hope that this honorable court can hear the issue, in order for the College of Charleston to grasp with the reality that it is not a private college that can do what it wants with taxpayer funding, and it is not in the protection of the Ivy League when obstructing state and federal law through contract obligation.

(DE# 1-1 at 5).

Plaintiff attaches a letter dated August 25, 2016 from Robert Reese, Chief of Police, Department of Public Safety, College of Charleston. (DE# 1-1 at 8). In the letter, Reese indicatesthat "based on information provided to me from my staff, and after conferring with other campus officials, I have reason to believe that you have engaged in conduct on our campus that threatens the well-being of our student, faculty members, staff, and our educational mission." (Id.). The letter warned Plaintiff, pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. §16-11-260, "not to enter or remain upon the property of the College for any purpose whatsoever without first obtaining the written authorization of the College." (Id.). The letter also advised Plaintiff that he could apply to have the restriction lifted upon presentation of satisfactory evidence that "you no longer represent a threat" and gave Plaintiff information on how to apply. Instead of submitting such evidence, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the College of Charleston.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff requests the following relief:

"I would like the court to award 150,000.00 USD, if found in favor of this court towards Glynndeavin von Fox. I base this decision on the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Department of Justice."

(DE# -1 at 7).

Based on Plaintiff's references to harassment based on national origin, the Defendant removed this action to federal court. Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss (DE# 8). In addressing Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant accurately points out that the pro se Plaintiff has a history of filing "incoherent or confusing pleadings in various courts" and that this case is no exception." (Id. at 1, fn.1). The record reflects that, in 2016 in this federal judicial district, Plaintiff filed at least twenty-one (21) cases, all of which were summarily dismissed.² Plaintiff is currently subject to a filing injunction in federal court. Having removed the case, the Defendant now movesfor dismissal because: 1) the College of Charleston is protected by sovereign immunity; and 2) for several reasons, the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In response, Plaintiff submitted 362 pages of incoherent arguments and irrelevant documents.³ For example, Plaintiff submitted a document where he complains to the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations that:

He has had to face constant harassment through protest by political action organizations like Black Lives Matter, fraternities and sorority's (sic) from his Alma Mater, and associations of hoteliers (sic) that try to block his stay under the South Carolina Lodging Establishment Act for accusations of sleeping in restaurants while watching the Olympics in Rio, which is ironic, because he was a boxer on the USAF Olympic Team selection program before emergency deployment to Kuwait as a member of the USAF Special Operations Task Force for Operation Southern Watch. Why would he sleep while watching old colleagues attempt gold medals?

(DE# 15-2 at 11, "Advisory Opinion Request"). He indicates that he sent such document to numerous embassies, as well as "The Vatican" and the "Charleston County Court." (Id. at 12). Plaintiff attaches a lengthy article entitled "Historical Overview of the Santee Indian Tribe of South Carolina," along with various appendices and genealogical records of various tribes. (DE# 15-2 at 35-116; 15-3 at 1-117; 15-4 at 1-122). Plaintiff does not coherently explain the purported significance of any of these exhibits.⁴ Plaintiff has on multiple occasions requested "protectionfrom court appearance." (DE# 19, 26, 29, 32). His stated reasons included alleged travel to England from April 22-30, 2017, alleged travel to China from July 4-10, 2017 (DE#32), alleged travel to Boston for kidney stone surgery from July 8-15, 2017 (DE# 26), and alleged travel to Las Vegas from July 23-28, 2017 (DE# 29).⁵

In its Reply, the Defendant points out that Plaintiff's Response contains "disjointed arguments, including references to his mental health status as well as his interpretation of barratry." (Id.).⁶ Defendant points out that due to the confusing nature of such allegations, the College must speculate as to what claims the Plaintiff is attempting to bring. (Id at 2). Defendant correctly asserts that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to "put the College on notice as to the specific causes of action he is asserting against the College." (Id.).

In his Sur-Reply, the pro se Plaintiff indicates that:

The [D]efendant also alleges that the State of South Carolina does not have the proper ability to determine its own form filing ability under the court form of SCCA/234 to determine a filing through South Carolina Code of Law, and even goes to Fortune Telling of the plaintiff's intent of filing with clear and concise writing that show false reporting as the reasoning under state court form. The Plaintiff's cases of a federal violation are at the United States of America Supreme Court under review for violation of federal laws as brought by the defendant's attorney, with proper citation under federal form of the issue with the College of Charleston through civil claims in a federal district court.

(DE# 17 at 1-2, italics in original). Even if such improper Sur-Reply is considered, Plaintiff's arguments fail to clarify matters. His allegations are largely incomprehensible, although it is apparent that he is unhappy about the trespass notice he received.

Plaintiff also filed a copy of letter he wrote to "Secretary General Antonio Guterres" in Geneva, Switzerland. (DE# 37).⁷ In such letter, Plaintiff refers to "the solidity of the peonage of the State of South Carolina," indicates that he needs to "pay bills in the capitalist country of the United States of America," and indicates (verbatim) that "this solidifies the need to find a new country to live in, and seek the full-fledged political asylum with the 40 different countries on the political asylum list from Tokyo, Japan and the United States of America political asylum regarding documents from Tokyo, Japan with the State of South Carolina." (Id.). He also sent such letter to the President of the United States of America, the Governor of South Carolina, and the Republic of China Embassy in Washington D.C. (Id.; see also DE# 15-2 at 9).

II. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief...