Vickers v. City of Pearson, Georgia et al, No. 5:2014cv00066 - Document 43 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Speedy Trial; GRANTING Defendants' 25 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 2/16/2016. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vickers v. City of Pearson, Georgia et al Doc. 43 tje IXniteb tate itvitt court for the boutbern itrttt of Oeorgia Waptro Ibiion JACQLINE D. VICKERS, Plaintiff, CV 514-66 V. CITY 2F PEF2YN, GEORGIA, PTFIFS F UGlY, CITY, LOCAL, STATE AF ELECTED OFFICIALS OF SAID C UJY AND ALL OTHER AFF1IAAP OFFICIALS, ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST INVOLVED IN THE EJS F COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, STATE F GEORGIA, GREG SOLES, HENRY SF FEY, HOBBlE GRANTHAM, d RICKY RIVERS, Defendants. ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Jacqueline Vickers ("Plaintiff") filed snir ap;ist multiple persons, in addition to Atkinson County, rcia, and the City of Pearson, Georgia. Plaintiff's C noaiin srs forth numerous claims against the following iadirtaa s and entities: City of Pearson, Georgia ("Pearson" A Fins cnty, Georgia ("Atkinson County"); Greg Soles ("Soles"); I enry Spivey ("Spivey"); Robbie Grantham "Grdarr; and Ricky Rivers ("Rivers") (collectively, A0 ) 72A (Rc. 8 82) Dockets.Justia.com Thtercants" . ±laintitt requests that this Court review the "fraudulent" actions of Atkinson County officials and employees that oqau in 1997, in addition to awarding her damages for the civil --ights violations perpetrated against her. See generally Uk . No. I "Compi.") . Presently before the Court are the 11cIng U'ions: 1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. to nos, n Plaintiff responded with several oppositions, dkt. /-28, 31; and 2) Plaintiff's Motion for a Speedy Trial 2k'., It, ",Jo. 7), to which Defendants filed a joint opposition, Ike. no. 40. Upon due consideration, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss CIt. No. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for a Speej Trial (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED AS MOOT. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ch- 4 lowing facts are taken solely from Plaintiff's rThir. Compl., pp. 1-14. Plaintiff lives in Atkinson County, -eorgia, where she has resided for the past thirty yeaes. Ii. at p. 2. As a result of several incidents with The s r County 'Police Department prior to 2000, PlaintifIL asserts that members of the Atkinson County Police Department, or r j t rs, have a "vendetta" against her. Id. at ¶ 17. The tIse incident occurred on March 9, 1997-when Plaintiff was 'traedi ntly charged," "falsely imprisoned," and subjected to 'u 7 2A 0) I and unusual punishment," according to her Complaint. 2 lo. on day 4, 1998, "several elected officials in Atkinson County" sadated a rumor that Plaintiff received $250,000 fi m a civil s , t. Id. at p. 2. The civil suit involved claims against Alta son County individuals who were campaigning for certain d positions. Id. Specifically, the suit 1aLalicv J Soles-who believed that he "lost the election because of t idaud charges against Plaintiff"-and Bettye Drayton Williams -against whom Plaintiff had run. Id. at 191 5-6. Short - v Thereafter, Plaintiff became a "'target' for police <assrs'at." - Plaintiff Id. at ¶ 2.1 alleges that for years Defendants have aTh srated a barrage of fraudulent charges against her for: "rr sistic threats, id. at 191 6, 12, 14, 20; check fraud, id. at ¶ c; speeding, id.; driving under the influence, id. at 191 6, a, ; child abuse, id. at ¶ 7, failure to stop at a red light, id. at ¶ I; false imprisonment, id. at ¶ 9; defamation, id. at ¶ II; arassment, id. at IT 14-15, 17, 20; unlawful arrest, id. at C 16; tft by taking, id. at IT 16, 18; "financial fraud a," id. at 91 18; obstruction of an officer (two ," • - , • A0 ) 72 A (Rex. 8 82) Sued a "Respondent [sic] to Answers and Defenses of Atkii entially filing a response to defense counsel's Answer to . )k. No. 20. In that response, Plaintiff sets forth anotner to her harassment. Plaintiff explains that on April 6, • iT' s husband was arrested by Spivey and Soles for playing hi ly. Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff then went to the Police Depai I 'i husband, and while she was there they grabbed her, Loud ely and used "excessive force" against her. Id. Plainti civil rights were violated, particularly since she was aruction of an Officer (2 Counts) Id. ." 3 counts), id.; reckless driving, id. at ¶ 19; and failure :0 rran r lace," id. at ¶T 19-20. Plaintiff further alleges that aha her home was robbed, the Atkinson County Police Department lea to bring charges against the thief who stole $2,096 in ca sh, as well as a fifty-two inch television, from her house. Id. at i 6. As a result of all of the above, Plaintiff contends ha cr Thirty-year marriage deteriorated and she suffered "seer helical Problems," in addition to emotional distress. Th. a TT i, 12. On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Request a N ±r• g lor Judicial Review Cases [sic] ." See generaliy id. In light of the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the art accepted this filing as her Complaint. 2 Plaintiff then s nno the following parties: Spivey, dkt. no. 6; Rivers, dkt. no. 1 1 s, no. 11 dkt. no. 8; Pearson, dkt. no. 9; and Grantham, Plaintiff requests that the Court "review several cases -hat cere held in the Atkinson County Magistrate, Superor Court and audacc her surrounding counies" for the imposition of charges against her, while awarding her appropriate darrages. id. 11 civil r hts" violations against her. Dkt. No. 20, ¶ 1. Now - H 72A (Rex. at ¶5 1-2. Plaintiff also seeks damages for "recharacterize a pro se litigant's motion to create a better between the substance of the motion and its underlying le y ci ev. U.S. Dist. Court, 523 F. App'x 691, 694 (11th Cir. 20 i lear from the record when Atkinson County was served, liott entered his appnce on behf of Atkinson Courit . Dkt. No. 18. lipe for the burt's review is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss k a 1o. and Plaintiff's Notion for a Speedy Trial (Dkt. I LEGAL STANDARD r uling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 120-D)(6", a district court must accept as true the facts thar a sat urah in the complaint and draw all reasonable lrar 1, s in the plaintiff's favor. Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d (11th Cir. 2010) . Although a complaint need not containIaal ed factual allegations, it must contain sufficient 1 material "to raise a right to relief above the sal lye level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, Given that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, her all ct s ace entitled to the benefit of liberal construction. Haine s . Ycner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Although courts may cons - --ue - aadings liberally, "this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an therwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." Roles v. Riva, 565 F. App'x 845, 846 (11th Cir. 2014) s and cite omitted) . "Although we are to give liberal cccst5uios to the pleadings of pro se litigants, 'we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural - AO 72\ lRc. S 52) s.` Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 5 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. DISCUSSION Feral courts are courts of limited jurisdiction as they may onlv :r those cases that either the Constitution or C ng ss a s. arized them to hear. see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life : Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts thus have jaisdiction over two types of cases: 1) those involving e1arsl question, d which includes "all civil actions arising urdes the nstitution, 28 .S. . , 131; or 2) those involving claims between citizens laws, or treaties of the United Sta as," I di - re t states where the amount in controversy exceeds 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A federal court must address the issic o f subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte if there is any qrst1cn FP garding its ability to hear a case. Cadet v. Bulgar, - 1 7/3, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004). aitiff fails to set forth a claim involving a federal quest'-on against Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that "[h]er Civil and Ccnstitutional Rights have been violated and [that] she has 'been living in a hostile environment for sixteen years." Comp l., ¶ 1. 0 A0 ) 72A (Rc. 8 82) :he incidents causing Plaintiff to request a iiue fully detailed the events giving rise to the aforemention violations in her Response. See generally Dkt. No. 20. ands that Rivers and Atkinson county violated the wF our t, Fourteenth mendmnt [sic] to the United States .1 hey wrongfully, cd without ju used "excessi ' 6 rnvis of the actions of Defendants occurred on March 9, 1997, S. at ¶ U, and on May 4, 1998, id. at p. 2. In a motion to the Court must accept all facts alleged by the cIIS2LSS, Plafntifff true and draw the appropriate inferences in he f =or. Sea Randall, 610 F.3d at 705. He--e, Plaintiff pleads several claims arising under the ocrth, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] ." Dkt. No. ¶ ii . State law controls the statute of limitations for C1C2rLS arisino under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: in Georgia, such claims are a n -o ny the two-year statute of limitations for pasral in -, ris. See o.c.G.A. § 9-3-33. Plaintiff's claims sa irearrai becmse the acts of which she complains ocarred in cO 1 n. 9 Plaintiff waited far too long before filing suit or tlrra Ui 5 a a statute of limitations of two years. Thus, aPis arc is crcluded from "reviewing" Plaintiff's federal claUs JInde- 2 ,13) - , S.O. § 1331. -_en chat Plaintiff's federal claims are time-barred, she may sU bring suit in federal court if she satisfies the quirn irs set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A liberal constrtic ,_ion of her complaint reveals that Plaintiff alleges to '-ave su ar "over $250,000.00 worth of damages" as a reat of Cefeniarts' actions. Compl., st sUe p. 2. Plaintiff has thus be amount in controversy requirement by pleadiag an intiff and her husband. Id. a i March 9, 1997. Ia. at AO ) 725 (Rc. - . The ic 0 amount queater than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff's *1 h ever, fail the diversity of citizenship requirement. A_to ugh Plaintiff sets forth multiple state law claims,' a federal urt has discretion as to whether to hear supplemental state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Courts are encouraqed to v ii exercising supplemental jurisdiction when original •s lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3) (allowing a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a SidlO over which it has supplemental jurisdiction if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has oigi ursdiction."); see also Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 7 .1- 10 8 6, 1088-89 (11th Cir. 2004) J 0 ostoi ("We have encouraged courts to dismiss any remaining state claims when, as h cederal claims have been dismissed prior to trial." so, ° aintiff failed to plead claims over which this Court cifi ucocise original jurisdiction. Because no federal cause of action remains in this suit, Plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3). - ro, the individually named defendants are residents of: Ia (Soles); Axson, Georgia (Spivey and Rivers); and Lakeland, jam) . Dkt. Nos. 6-8, 12. Slaintiff asserts that she was subject to the following state ee Imprisonment, Police Harrassment [sic] and Misconduct, rats, Theft by Taking, Aggravated Assaults, Property that er from her, Insurance Fraud, Fraud and Frivolous Criminal Chi 0, Credit Fraud, Slander, Defamation of Character, and Emotd ." oompl., p. 1. Plaintiff also alleges that she was a victii i Late law causes of action for: check fraud, id. at ¶ 6; spa 0 ider the influence, in. at ¶f 6, 19-20; child abuse, id. oop at a red light, Id. at ¶ 8; obstruction of an officer ¶ 18; reckless L , id. at ¶ 19; and failure to main q-20. Liu AO 72$ Rc\. 8 $2) 8 -cc riin1, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D -,'-t. Nlo. . Plaintiff's Motion for a Speedy Trial (Dk, Na. is DEN= AS MOOT. CONCLUSION a reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Isass(Dk. No. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for a Sp i: Trial Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of ur is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and to i t s case. SO ORDERED, this 16TH day of February, 2016. LISA GODHEY W OD, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA A() 72\ (IO. 8 1,2)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
