United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
30, 2018, pro se Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc.
1) against Attorney Roianne Conner (“Defendant”).
While far from a model of clarity, the Complaint appears to
allege claims of slander, defamation of character, and
falsification of legal documents, all relating to
Plaintiff's 1993 criminal conviction in which Defendant
was allegedly the prosecutor. See generally (Doc.
1). Plaintiff's Complaint also asserts non-specific
violations of Plaintiff's civil and constitutional
rights. Id. at 1. On July 28, 2018, Defendant filed
a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 11).
In response to Defendant's motion, the United States
Magistrate Judge previously assigned to the case entered a
show cause order directing Plaintiff to either file an
amended complaint or to respond to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. See (Doc. 13). On August 6, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a document titled “MOTION TO CONTINUE IN LAWSUIT
MOTION TO BE HEARD (APPROACH THE BENCH)[.]” (Doc. 15)
at 1. From what the undersigned can discern, Plantiff's
motion asks the Court “to hear [Plaintiff's]
complaint against the Defendant in an open courtroom
setting” so he can obtain certain information from
Defendant and meet her in person. See generally
(Doc. 15). On August 24, 2018, Defendant filed a second
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. 16). In
that motion, Defendant states that “Plaintiff has
failed to submit any document amending his original Complaint
or explaining why the instant cause should not be dismissed[,
]” and asks the court to dismiss Plaintiff's
original Complaint for failure to comply with the Court's
order and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. (Doc. 16) at 2. On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a document titled, in part, “MOTION TO
PROCEED[.]” (Doc. 17) at 1. That document does not
intelligibly respond to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss nor does it appear to be an attempt to
amend Plaintiff's Complaint. See generally (Doc.
17). Finally, on December 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Amend his Complaint. See (Doc. 20). That motion,
inter alia, seeks to add additional defendants,
including “past public defenders employees and their
supervisors and directors” for
“mishandling” Plaintiff's earlier criminal
case. (Doc. 20) at 1.
motions before the Court are ripe for disposition or
recommendation to the District Judge. For the reasons that follow,
the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend (Doc. 20) be DENIED as futile; Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 11) be GRANTED; Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 16) be DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's Motion
to Continue in Lawsuit (Doc. 15) be DENIED as moot;
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed (Doc. 17) be DENIED as
moot; and this action be DISMISSED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Complaint attempts to state claims against Defendant for
slander, defamation of character, and falsification of legal
documents arising from the conduct of Defendant when she
was-according to Plaintiff-impersonating “a Montgomery
County, Alabama Deputy District Attorney” in 1993-1996.
(Doc. 1) at 1, 2. He also asserts that his civil and
constitutional rights have been violated by “OTHERS OF THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT” because of Defendant. Id. at
2. As best the undersigned can interpret, Plaintiff alleges
that, while impersonating a prosecutor, Defendant averred in
a state court proceeding that Plaintiff withdrew a plea of
not guilty to a plea of guilty for a charge of sexual abuse
in the first degree. See (Doc. 1) at 2. However,
Plaintiff appears to claim that the change of plea never
actually took place. See (Doc. 1-6) at 1
(handwritten note from Plaintiff on a state-court document
reflecting the disposition of his sex abuse charge stating
that he “would like to enter a plea of not guilty,
because . . . [he] has never in 1993, been in a courtroom,
anywhere in the United States of America, especially in
Alabama with [Defendant] and made a guilty plea”);
(Doc. 1-7) (a case action summary from state court regarding
Plaintiff's guilty plea for the sexual abuse charge with
a handwritten note from Plaintiff stating “THIS
INCIDENT NEVER HAPPEN, and the lower courts refuse this
evidents of my INNOCENCE, WHY?”). Plaintiff asserts
that the fictional event, which purportedly occurred on
January 14, 1993, has been used “to bring criminal
charges against [him] . . . under the community notification
law” on three separate occasions and that, based upon
those new criminal charges, he was incarcerated. (Doc. 1) at
2. Further, Plaintiff alleges that because of Defendant's
“appearance and influence in [his] criminal appeal
matter in criminal Appeals Court[, ]” he
“lost” his children and his home. Id.
the relief Plaintiff seeks is unclear, it does appear that
Plaintiff wishes to confront Defendant in court and to accept
“whatever financial decision or allotment the courts
decide[.]” (Doc. 1) at 2 (Plaintiff states:
“THAT'S WHY I BEEN WAITING TO SEE THIS WOMAN, IN
COURT (IN A TRIAL AMONGST MY PEERS) BECAUSE I DON'T THINK
WE HAVE EVER MET[.]”). It also appears that Plaintiff
wishes for the Court to enter an order expunging any fines,
fees, restrictions, or requirements (except for registration
and monthly reporting) imposed upon Plaintiff as a result of
his three additional criminal cases. (Doc. 1-1) at 1-5.
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend His Complaint
motion to amend his complaint seeks to add as defendants the
15th Judicial Circuit's Public Defenders Office as well
as individual public defenders. (Doc. 20). The motion also
calls for “A F.B.I. OR U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
investigation of [Plaintiff] . . . being ARRESTED and
CO-HEARSE to plea guilty 3 times by Montgomery county public
defender office employees on a falsified legal document-to a
criminal incident that NEVER HAPPEN[.]” Id. at
1. Plaintiff lists multiple grievances he has with the
putative defendants, all involving state court criminal
proceedings against him that appear to have occurred in 2004,
2010, and 2017. See generally id. Plaintiff states
that the proposed defendants “SHOULD BE MADE TO
ASSIST/GO BACK and DO WHAT THEY WAS PAID TO DO ON MY BEHALF
THESE 4 TIMES/cases[.]” Id. at 2.
Motion to Dismiss
purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the facial
sufficiency of a claimant's statement for relief. See
S.E.C. v. ESM Group, Inc., 835 F.2d 270, 272 (11th Cir.
1988). It is read alongside Rule 8(a), which requires only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
The rule is not designed to strike inartistic pleadings or to
provide a more definite statement to answer an apparent
ambiguity, and the analysis of a 12(b)(6) motion is limited
primarily to the face of the complaint and its attachments. 5
Charles A. Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 1356 at 590-92 (1969) (Wright &
Miller). While a complaint need not provide detailed factual
allegations, the standard “requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see
also Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 958
(11th Cir. 2009); Cobb v. State of Fla., 293
Fed.Appx. 708, 709 (11th Cir. 2008). “[N]aked
assertion[s]” bereft of “further factual
enhancement” do not suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 557. Indeed, a complaint's “factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Id. at 555.
“Moreover, the facts supporting the claim must be
‘consistent with the allegations in the
complaint.'” Wilchombe, 555 F.3d at 958
(quoting Twombly, 550 ...