Walsh v. Gilliam

• Decision Date: 25 February 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00082-MR-WCM
• Parties: DELTA WALSH, Plaintiff, v. FORREST GILLIAM, County Manager for Madison County, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina

DELTA WALSH, Plaintiff, v. FORREST GILLIAM, County Manager for Madison County, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00082-MR-WCM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION

February 25, 2020

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by the Defendants Forrest Gilliam, James Harwood, Bobby Gosnell, Bobby Gosnell Transport, County of Madison, Madison County Sheriff's Department, Madison County Department of Social Services, Connie M. Harris, and Mandie Sluder [Doc. 20] and Defendant Dewain Mackey's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23].

I. BACKGROUND

A. The 2011 Civil Action

On December 2, 2011, the pro se Plaintiff Delta Walsh filed a complaint on behalf of herself and her minor children, R.M., R.W., W.W., and R.K. [Civil Case No. 1:11-cv-00321-MR-DCK ("CV-321"), Doc. 1: Complaint]. The Court denied the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. [CV-321 Doc. 4]. In that Order, the Court cautioned that an initial review of the complaint "disclose[d] a significant possibility that the claims raised therein are not cognizable in the law and may well be considered legally frivolous." [Id. at 2]. The Plaintiff was allowed an extension of time to amend her complaint and pay the requisite fees to the Court. [CV-321 Doc. 6: Order].

The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2012, identifying approximately twenty (20) defendants, including her neighbor, Dewain Mackey ("Mackey"), in both his individual and official capacities as an employee of the Madison County Schools and Vice-Chairman of the Madison County Planning/Zoning Board; the Madison County Sheriff's Department; and Madison County Sheriff James Harwood. [CV-321 Doc. 7: Amended Complaint]. In this lengthy and rambling pleading, the Plaintiff alleged multiple violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as various tort claims under state law, including legal malpractice, conspiracy to oppress, misconduct in public office, obstruction of justice, and judicial and/or official abuse. [Id. at 23-25]. The Plaintiff sought approximately twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. [Id. at 25-27].

The genesis of the 2011 lawsuit appeared to be a series of ongoing disputes and conflicts between the Plaintiff and Mackey regarding alleged trespass, negligence, and/or property damage, including by Mackey's livestock. [See CV-321 Doc. 49 at 3]. In the 2011 Action, the Plaintiff contended that Mackey had harassed, intimidated, bullied, stalked, and/or threatened her and her minor children. [CV-321 Doc. 7 at 4]. The Plaintiff also generally alleged that all the named defendants were guilty of "an unlawful criminal conspiracy" to deny the Plaintiff and her minor children due process and equal protection under the law. [Id.].

Several of the named defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Defendant Mackey and others moved for a more definite statement, arguing that the amended complaint was "so vague and ambiguous that these Defendants cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading to it." [CV-321 Doc. 23 at 1]. The Plaintiff, in turn, moved to file a second amended complaint. [CV-321 Doc. 9].

Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler filed a Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 49] in which he recommended granting some of the defendants' motions to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment and common law sovereign immunity principles and denying the other defendants'motions to dismiss without prejudice (including the motion to dismiss filed by Madison County Sheriff Harwood, Defendant Mackey in his capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Madison County Planning/Zoning Board, and the Madison County Sheriff's Department). In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge also ruled on the two pending non-dispositive motions, granting the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint and denying as moot Defendant Mackey's motion for a more definite statement. [Id.].

The Plaintiff objected to the Memorandum and Recommendation. [CV-321 Doc. 52]. In an Order entered on August 3, 2012, this Court adopted the Memorandum and Recommendation and gave the Plaintiff twenty (20) days to file either a second amended complaint or a voluntary dismissal of the action. [CV-321 Doc. 56]. On August 20, 2012, rather than filing an amendment or a voluntary dismissal, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from the Court's Order. [CV-321 Doc. 57]. Because the time within which the Plaintiff could have filed an amendment or voluntary dismissal had expired and she did not take either course of action, this Court dismissed the case. [CV-321 Doc. 59]. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order dismissing the case, [CV-321 Doc. 62], but she subsequently withdrew that appeal on December 12, 2012. [CV-321 Doc. 65].

B. The 2019 Civil Action

The Plaintiff commenced the present civil action on March 11, 2019, against the following Defendants:

(1) Forest Gilliam, County Manager for Madison County, in his official and individual capacities;

(2) James Harwood, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Madison County;

(3) Bobby Gosnell, individually and in his "professional" capacity as a deputy employed by the Madison County Sheriff's Department;

(4) Bobby Gosnell Transport;

(5) John Doe, individually and his "professional" capacity as a deputy of the Madison County Sheriff's Department; and

(6) John Doe Surety Insurance Company, also referred to as John Doe Insurance Company.

[Doc. 1]. Unlike the 2011 action, the Plaintiff brought this action solely on her own behalf and did not include any of her children as parties. [Id.]. Before any of the Defendants answered the Complaint, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 11]. This Amended Complaint adds the following parties as Defendants:

(7) Madison County;

(8) Madison County Sheriff's Department;

(9) Madison County Department of Social Services;

(10) Connie M. Harris, individually and in her official capacity as Director of the Madison County Department of Social Services;

(11) Mandie Sluder, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Madison County Department of Social Services;

(12) Dewain Mackey, individually and in his "professional" capacity doing business as Mackey Farms; and

(13) "John Does, Mary Does, as yet unknown, and others unnamed."

[Doc. 11]. Defendants Madison County, Madison County Manager Gilliam, Madison County Sheriff Harwood, Deputy Gosnell, Deputy Doe, Madison County Sheriff's Department, Madison County Department of Social Services, Connie M. Harris, and Mandie Sluder shall hereafter be referred to collectively as "the Madison County Defendants."

The Amended Complaint in the 2019 Action restates many of the same allegations as asserted in the 2011 action regarding Mackey's alleged trespass, property damage, and harassment of the Plaintiff. [See Doc. 11]. The Plaintiff also reasserts her allegations that Mackey and other County officials are engaged in a (now fifteen-year-long) conspiracy to deny her due process and equal protection of the law. [Id.]. The Plaintiff again asserts several federal causes of action, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, as well as various alleged state tortclaims including "conspiracy to oppress," "misconduct in public office," and "obstruction of justice." [Id. at 6, 25-27].

While the allegations of the current Amended Complaint are largely duplicative of the allegations asserted in the 2011 Civil Action, the Plaintiff also includes new allegations related to the arrest of the Plaintiff's employee, Frank Gooden, at the Plaintiff's residence on March 11, 2016. Regarding that incident, the Plaintiff alleges as follows.

In the evening hours of March 11, 2016, Deputy Gosnell and Deputy John Doe (also referred to in the Amended Complaint as "Officer J"), arrived at the Plaintiff's home, where she resides with three minor children. On that evening, one of the Plaintiff's employees, Frank Gooden, was babysitting two of the Plaintiff's minor children. Gooden responded to a knock on the front door. According to the Amended Complaint:

Officer "J" was standing outside the door, armed, and in full uniform, and asked, "Are you Frank Gooden?" Gooden identified himself, and Officer "J" immediately handcuffed him and told him that he had a warrant for his arrest. Then Officer Gosnell appears from the corner of the house with an aimed firearm in place, in a loud intimidating voice, "I thought you'd come out with guns blazing!" Gooden replied, "we have no guns." Gosnell pushed and shoved Gooden, while handcuffed, inside the house from the front porch/deck to a chair in the living room, [and] conducted himself as though Gooden was aviolent criminal. Defendant Gosnell then instructed Officer "J" to "shoot him if he moves!"

Meanwhile, Gosnell is rambling through Gooden's wallet, and apparently took away and removed his Government issued, Department of Defense Contractor's card. Gosnell started asking in a loud, demanding tone of voice, "where are all those assault weapons and explosives?" Officer Gosnell walked through Plaintiff's house opening cabinets, rummaging, and slamming doors; opening and slamming drawers, and throwing clothing everywhere; kicking over a cat litter box; and yelling in a loud tone over and over, traumatizing said minor children, and demanded to know where the guns were hidden.

[Doc. 11 at 24].

The Plaintiff alleges that the officers who arrested Gooden had no warrant in hand and did not otherwise produce a warrant.¹ [Id.]. Deputy Gosnell continued questioning the Plaintiff's minor children, demanding to know the location of the...