Wann v. St. Francois Cnty.

• Decision Date: 07 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4:15CV895 CDP,4:15CV895 CDP
• Parties: RICHARD LEE WANN, Plaintiff, v. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

RICHARD LEE WANN, Plaintiff, v. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:15CV895 CDP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

March 7, 2016

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PlaintiffRichard Lee Wann brings this action against state and private actors alleging that he was unlawfully confined at healthcare facilities and was involuntarily administered psychotropic medications so that he would be rendered incompetent and in need of a guardian and/or conservator ad litem.Wann contends that the ultimate appointment of the public administrator as guardian/conservator ad litem perpetuated this unlawful conduct, which in turn caused him physical, emotional, and economic injuries, including the reduction of his estate.In his complaint, Wann brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and1985(2), as well as a number of claims under Missouri state law.He names as defendantsSt. Francois County, Public Administrator V. Kenneth Rohrer, Edward Pultz(an attorney for Rohrer), Brice Reed Sechrest(an attorney once appointed to represent plaintiff), Judge Shawn Ragan McCarver, Farmington Missouri Hospital Company, Dr. Ahmad Ardekani, Social Worker Nicole Rotter, and Americare at Maplebrook Assisted Living.

I conclude that Wann has adequately stated claims against defendants Dr. Ardekani, MSW Rotter, Farmington (as owner of Mineral Area Regional Medical Center), and Americare (which operated The Arbors) for unlawful imprisonment (Counts 3 and 4) and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts 5 and 6).All other claims and all other defendants will be dismissed for various legal reasons as discussed below.

BACKGROUND¹

On May 3, 2013, Wann was admitted to Mineral Area Regional Medical Center (MARMC), which is owned by defendantFarmington Missouri Hospital Company, after falling at his home.He was not released from MARMC after being treated, however, but instead was admitted to Behavioral Health in MARMC's geriatric ward and was given psychotropic medications as ordered by defendantDr. Ahmad Ardekani.He alleges that as a result he experienced hallucinations and confusion.Dr. Ardekani and defendant MSW Nikki Rotter participated in Wann's care while he was admitted to MARMC's geriatric ward.During this admission, MSW Rotter noted in Wann's medical record that he had had a major decline in life skills and could not reside alone because of his lack of cognitive abilities.

On May 16, MSW Rotter sent Wann's information to the St. Francois County Public Administrator(PA) to begin guardianship and/or conservatorship proceedings.Although Wann was scheduled to be released from MARMC on May 16, Dr. Ardekani and MSW Rotter extended Wann's release date to May 24.

On May 17, defendant PA V. Kenneth Rohrer filed a petition in probate court for the emergency appointment of a temporary guardian on behalf of Wann.The petition was accompanied by Dr. Ardekani's deposition.Wann's daughter, Theresa Brown, likewise filed a petition to be appointed as temporary guardian/conservator, to which Wann's son consented.The probate court appointed defendantBrice Sechrest as counsel for Wann.

In the meanwhile, Dr. Ardekani and MSW Rotter extended Wann's MARMC release date from May 24 to May 30.They later extended the release date to June 6.On June 4, however, Wann was transferred to another care facility, The Arbors, whereupon he continued to receive psychotropic medications.

On June 10, the probate court held a hearing on the petitions for temporary guardianship/conservatorship, over which defendant Associate Circuit Judge Shawn Ragan McCarver presided.In addition to PA Rohrer and Theresa Brown, Wann's brother, Robert, appeared at the hearing.As an attorney, Judge McCarver had previously represented Robert in a separate probate matter involving conservatorship and guardianship issues relating to Pearl Eunice Wann, the mother of Robert Wann and Richard Wann, the plaintiff here.²Wann avers in his complaint that he and Robert were adversaries in that action.Judge McCarver is also the cousin of Darlene Wann, Robert's wife.³

On June 13, Judge McCarver entered a consent judgment appointing PA Rohrer as temporary guardian ad litem over Wann and as temporary conservator ad litem over his estate for a thirty-day period.Various other provisions were made in the order, including the payment of fees for attorney Sechrest, the surrender by Theresa Brown of Wann's financial documents, authorization to transfer Wann from MARMC to The Arbors, and making arrangements for Wann to be examined for possible medical and surgical intervention given his diagnosis of colon invasive carcinoma.After being appointed temporary conservator and guardian ad litem, PA Rohrer sought and obtained from Judge McCarver several extensions of this appointment through December 2013.

Beginning in August 2013, Theresa Brown sought to modify the terms of the consent judgment and also filed a motion for contempt.Judge McCarver designated the proceeding as adversary and PA Rohrer began propounding discovery requests to Brown.Judge McCarver permitted PA Rohrer to retain attorney Edward Pultz to represent him in the proceedings; privately retained counsel, Stephen Banton, entered an appearance on behalf of Wann.⁴On December 17, Judge McCarver struck Banton's entry of appearance and related filings from the record, as well as all of Brown's pleadings.This ruling was later set aside and attorney Banton was permitted to continue as Wann's counsel.

On January 30, 2014, Judge McCarver adopted a stipulated agreement whereby Wann was permitted to return to his private residence.PA Rohrer was continued in his appointment as temporary guardian/conservator ad litem, and Judge McCarver thereafter continually granted PA Rohrer's requested extensions of this appointment.On June 10, 2014, PA Rohrer filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and also moved the court to approve final settlement.In an order dated June 27, Judge McCarver ordered that attorneys' fees, PA Rohrer's fees and expenses, and associated bills be paid from Wann's estate.Rohrer's appointment as temporary guardian was terminated, but he was ordered to continue as temporary conservator to wind up the affairs of the estate.

On July 10, 2014, upon PA Rohrer's request, Judge McCarver dismissed the case without prejudice.

THE COMPLAINT

Wann, through his counsel Banton, brings his claims in an extensive fifty-seven-page, seven-count complaint against St. Francois County, PA Rohrer, attorneys Pultz and Sechrest, Judge McCarver, Farmington Missouri Hospital Company(as owner of MARMC), Dr. Ardekani, MSW Rotter, and Americare (as operator of The Arbors).All claims are brought against all defendants:

Count 1: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - that the defendants acted in concert under color of state law to cause him to be falsely imprisoned in the MARMC geriatric ward and The Arbors; to be drugged with psychotropic medications without his consent at the MARMC geriatric ward and at The Arbors; to suffer loss of money; and to suffer emotional distress and physical stress.Wann alleges that defendants' conduct violated his First Amendment right to petition the government and access the court; his Fifth Amendment right to due process in his loss of property; his Sixth Amendment right to counsel; and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Count 2: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) - that the defendants acted in concert to deny him equal protection of the laws by impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice.

Count 3: Unlawful Imprisonment

Count 4: Unlawful Imprisonment by Chemical Restraint and Battery

Count 5: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Count 6: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Count 7: Declaratory Relief for Fraud on the Court - requesting that Judge McCarver's decisions in 13SF-PR00115 be declared null and void inasmuch as he lacked jurisdiction over the action.

Wann invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction as to Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint.Regarding his state law claims in Counts 3 through 7, Wann invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) alleging that he is citizen of California, all defendants are citizens of Missouri, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Defendants' various motions to dismiss argue that some or all of Wann's claims should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Defendants also argue that some or all of Wann's claims should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.Each of the defendants base their arguments on different theories, which I will discuss in detail below.For the following reasons, the claims raised in Counts 1, 2, and 7 will be dismissed.All remaining claims against defendantsSt. Francois County, PA Rohrer, attorneys Pultz and Sechrest, and Judge McCarver will also be dismissed.The claims raised in Counts 3 through 6, however, will survive as to defendants Ardekani, Rotter, Farmington, and Americare.

DISCUSSION

Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction - Rule 12(b)(1)

All defendants move to dismiss Wann's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,⁵ lower federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court judgments and are thus barred from hearing claims that "in effect constitute a challenge to a state court decision."Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548(8th Cir.2003);see alsoLemonds v. St. Louis Cnty., 222 F.3d 488, 492(8th Cir.2000).Except for habeas petitions, the United States Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to consider the appeal of a state court judgment.Skit Int'l, Ltd. v. DAC Techs. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156(8th Cir.2007).This does not mean a...