Grissom v. Roberts et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 3/26/2024. (KAM)

FILED
2024 Mar-26 AM 10:54
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK GRISSOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANNAH ROBERTS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:23-cv-116-ACA

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Mark Grissom, proceeding pro se, filed his initial complaint on
January 27, 2023. (Doc. 1). After several rounds of motion and pleading practice,
Mr. Grissom filed a second amended complaint (doc. 41), which is the operative
complaint. Although the second amended complaint named four defendants and
asserted several claims (see generally id.), all that remains are claims that
Defendants Annah Roberts and Malia Williams (collectively, the “Auditor
Defendants”) conspired to violate Mr. Grissom’s rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments (doc. 55 at 10; doc. 56).
In a previous order, the court noted that Mr. Grissom had not plausibly alleged
the existence of a conspiracy and ordered him to show cause why the court should
not dismiss his conspiracy claims. (Doc. 55 at 10–11). Mr. Grissom’s response
reiterates the facts and claims alleged in his operative complaint and seeks to add
equal protection claims against the Auditor Defendants. (Doc. 57). The court

construes this as a motion to amend the complaint. The Auditor Defendants
responded, seeking dismissal because Mr. Grissom still failed to state a claim. (Doc.
58). The court ordered Mr. Grissom to reply to the Auditor Defendants’ arguments
(doc. 59), but Mr. Grissom has not done so.
Because Mr. Grissom’s current and proposed claims fail to state a claim, the
court WILL DENY Mr. Grissom leave to amend (doc. 57) and WILL DISMISS
Mr. Grissom’s claims WITH PREJUDICE.
I.

BACKGROUND
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the court must accept as true

the factual allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cnty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th
Cir. 2012). The facts Mr. Grissom alleged in his operative complaint are the same as
those he proposes to allege in an amended pleading. (Compare doc. 41 at 9–23, with
doc. 57 at 2–9). The court has recited those allegations before. (See doc. 55 at 2–4).
In summary, Mr. Grissom alleges that he was a fact witness in lawsuits his
son brought against the State of Alabama and District Attorney Hayes Webb. (Doc.
41 at 18, 21). Around the same time, Ms. Roberts, on behalf of the Alabama
Department of Revenue, audited Mr. Grissom’s taxes and eventually issued a
warrant for tax penalties and collection, all without complying with the taxpayer bill
of rights or allowing Mr. Grissom to resolve the tax issues. (See id. at 21–22). At
2

some point, Ms. Roberts stated that the warrant for collection was a mistake. (Id. at
22).
After the “audit three year period expired,” Ms. Williams contacted
Mr. Grissom and notified him that his taxes were again under review. (Id.).
Ms. Williams did not provide Mr. Grissom with the taxpayer bill of rights. (Doc. 41
at 22). Ms. Williams avoided calling the “tax review” an audit yet she requested all
the information and documentation that would be required to conduct a tax audit.
(Id.). Mr. Grissom’s “taxes were recently rejected.” (Id.). The more recent tax
troubles occurred when Mr. Grissom’s son filed a motion for the United States
Supreme Court to issue an injunction to stop witness intimidation and retaliation.
(Id.).
According to Mr. Grissom, the timing of the initial tax audit and the
subsequent tax review reflect a conspiracy to retaliate against him for being a witness
in his son’s lawsuits. (Doc. 41 at 9–10). The court previously construed the operative
complaint to allege two groups of claims: (1) that the Auditor Defendants conspired
to deprive Mr. Grissom of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
and (2) that the Auditor Defendants conspired to conduct an unreasonable search
and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. 55 at 4; see also doc. 41 at
9–18). Mr. Grissom’s motion to amend retains those claims and seeks to add claims

3

that the Auditor Defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. (Doc. 57 at 5–9).
II.

DISCUSSION
A claim is legally insufficient if the plaintiff does not plead “enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A plausible claim requires “more than labels and conclusions
[or] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555. In
addition, although the “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a district court may deny leave to amend as futile
when the proposed claims would be subject to dismissal, see Almanza v. United
Airlines, Inc., 851 F.3d 1060, 1074 (11th Cir. 2017).
1. The Conspiracy Claims
To state a claim for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, a plaintiff must
“show[ ] a conspiracy existed that resulted in the actual denial of some underlying
constitutional right.” Grider v. City of Auburn, 618 F.3d 1240, 1260 (11th Cir. 2010).
“[M]ore than mere conclusory notice pleading is required” because “a defendant
must be informed of the nature of the conspiracy which is alleged.” Fullman v.
Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556–57 (11th Cir. 1984). “It is not enough to simply aver
in the complaint that a conspiracy existed.” Id. at 557.

4

The court’s previous opinion found that Mr. Grissom had not pleaded facts to
support the existence of a conspiracy. (Doc. 55 at 10–11; see also id. at 7–8).
Although the court gave Mr. Grissom notice of this deficiency and an opportunity to
respond (id. at 12), Mr. Grissom’s response does nothing more than repeat the same
insufficient allegations (see generally doc. 57). Neither the allegations in
Mr. Grissom’s operative complaint (doc. 41 at 18–23), nor Mr. Grissom’s proposed
amendment (doc. 57 at 2–9), permit the court to draw the inference that the Auditor
Defendants entered a conspiracy to deprive Mr. Grissom of any constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the court WILL DENY leave to amend and WILL DISMISS
Mr. Grissom’s remaining claims WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The Equal Protection Clause Claims
Mr. Grissom also proposes a new theory of liability under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See doc. 57 at 7, 9). “The Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause provides that ‘no State shall deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” Adams v. Demopolis
City Sch., 80 F.4th 1259, 1272 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XIV,
§ 1) (alterations accepted). To adequately state a claim under the Equal Protection
Clause, Mr. Grissom must, at a minimum, allege facts from which a factfinder could
infer that the defendants treated him differently from others who are similarly
situated to him. See Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012). But
5

Mr. Grissom has not alleged any facts that support these proposed claims. (See
generally doc. 57). Accordingly, the court also concludes that these proposed claims
are futile and WILL DENY leave to amend.
III.

CONCLUSION

The court WILL DENY Mr. Grissom leave to amend and WILL DISMISS
Mr. Grissom’s claims WITH PREJUDICE. The court will enter a separate final
order consistent with this memorandum opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this March 26, 2024.

_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6