THORNTON v. ALBANY DRIVERS LICENSE et al
Filing
17
ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss; granting 12 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 08/02/2012. (CGC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD THORNTON, SR.,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
ALBANY DRIVERS LICENSE,
et al.,
*
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-171 (CDL)
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff
proceeding
against
Labor,
pro
James
Edward
se
in
“Albany
the
and
Drivers
Albany
Thornton,
forma
pauperis,
Licenses,”
Housing
Sr.
the
Authority,
(“Thornton”),
filed
Georgia
a
Complaint
Department
“Sentencing
District
of
of
United State[s] Probation Office [for the] Middle District of
Georgia,” and several others.1
1-1.
several
See generally Compl., ECF Nos. 1 &
Thornton claims that he is a “kidnap victim” and that
Defendants
are
holding
his
“release
driver’s license and social security card.
at
2.
Thornton
also
claims
that
he
is
papers,”
money,
Id. at 4, ECF No. 1-1
the
victim
of
race
discrimination, id. at 6, ECF No. 1-1 at 4, and that he ordered
and paid for a computer that he did not receive, id. at 8-9, ECF
1
Thornton’s Complaint appears to be on behalf of himself and “Gen.
James
Edward
Thornton
Sr.,”
Thornton’s
Construction
Building
Contractors, JLK Hauling and Construction Company, General Construction
Company and Facility Maintenance Service.
The Court refers to all
Plaintiffs collectively as “Thornton.”
No. 1-1 at 6-7.
Thornton seeks $9.99 decillion in damages and
various forms of injunctive relief.2
Compl. 9-10, ECF No. 1-1 at
7-8.
Presently pending before the Court is the Georgia Department
of Labor’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9), which is granted as
discussed in more detail below.
Also before the Court is the
Albany Housing Authority’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12), which
is granted for the reasons set forth below.
against
“Albany
Drivers
Licenses”
and
Thornton’s claims
“Sentencing
District
of
United State[s] Probation Office [for the] Middle District of
Georgia”
are
dismissed
under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Thornton’s remaining claims are dismissed for lack of subject
matter
jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
Thornton’s
Complaint
is
dismissed in its entirety.
MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD
When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
must
accept
complaint
as
and
true
limit
all
facts
its
consideration
exhibits attached thereto.
set
forth
to
in
the
the
plaintiff=s
pleadings
and
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007); Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949,
959
(11th
complaint
Cir.
must
2009).
contain
“To
survive
sufficient
2
a
motion
factual
to
matter,
dismiss,
accepted
a
as
A decillion is a one followed by thirty-three zeros.
Table of
Denominations Above One Million, available at http://www.merriamwebster.com/table/dict/number.htm (last visited July 31, 2012).
2
true,
to
face.’”
‘state
a
claim
to
relief
that
is
plausible
on
its
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570).
The complaint must include sufficient factual
allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
“[A] formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]”
the
complaint
must
contain
factual
allegations
Id.
that
Although
“raise
a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of”
the plaintiff=s claims, id. at 556, “Rule 12(b)(6) does not permit
dismissal of a well-pleaded complaint simply because ‘it strikes
a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable,’”
Watts v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quoting
Twombly,
550
U.S.
at
556).
“The
same
standards
governing dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) apply to
dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”
Shanks v. Potter, 451 F.
App’x 815, 817 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed; while “wildly
implausible allegations in the complaint should not be taken to
be true, . . . the court ought not penalize the litigant for
linguistic
imprecision
in
the
more
plausible
allegations.”
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008).
3
DISCUSSION
I.
Claims Against Georgia Department of Labor, U.S. Probation
Office and “Albany Driver’s Licenses”
Thornton
alleges
that
the
Georgia
Department
of
Labor
(“Labor Department”), along with “Sentencing District of United
State[s] Probation Office [for the] Middle District of Georgia”
(“U.S.
Probation
Office”)
and
“Albany
Driver’s
Licen[s]es”
(“Albany DMV”), violated Thornton’s “5th Amendment Constitutional
Rights, under due Process” and that Thornton is a “kidnap victim”
under the federal criminal kidnapping statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1201.
Compl. 3-4, ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2.
Specifically, Thornton claims
that the Labor Department, the U.S. Probation Office and the
Albany DMV “are holding [Thornton’s] Release Papers, [his] money
which is [his] UnEmplormeny [sic], and [his] Driving Lice[ns]es.”
Compl. 4, ECF No. 1-1 at 2.
Thornton further alleges that he
cannot get a job because these Defendants are “holding [his] S.S.
Card.”
Id.
Thornton appears to allege that he is a “kidnap
victim” because Defendants are holding his release papers, money,
driver’s
license
and
social
security
card.
Id.
He
further
alleges:
I am a Kidnap Victim, This is what Constituted The
elements of this Civil Action Law Suit, Civil Criminal
Negligences and a violation of Civil Rights Act,
Discrimination, Race of Color, Harassment, Conspiracy
to Identity Theft Falsefity Documents, Aidding and
Betting to Murder, Defamation of Carriter [sic].
4
Id.
Under a liberal construction of these allegations, the Court
concludes that Thornton is attempting to assert the following
claims against the Labor Department, the U.S. Probation Office
and the Albany DMV: (1) Fifth Amendment Due Process Claim, (2)
kidnapping
claim
unemployment
under
benefits,
18
(4)
U.S.C. §
race
1201,
(3)
discrimination,
denial
(5)
of
identity
theft, (6) falsification of documents, (7) aiding and abetting
murder, and (8) defamation of character.
Thornton’s
Complaint
is
completely
devoid
of
factual
allegations to state a plausible claim for relief against the
Labor Department, the U.S. Probation Office and the Albany DMV
under
any
factual
of
these
allegations
theories.
to
First,
support
a
due
there
process
are
no
claim.
specific
It
is
impossible to tell from the Complaint what factual grounds form
the basis for the due process claim, so Thornton’s attempted due
process claim fails.3
Second, even if 18 U.S.C. § 1201 provided a
private right of action for kidnapping victims, Thornton did not
allege any facts to support a claim that the Labor Department,
the U.S. Probation Office or the Albany DMV kidnapped him, so
3
Moreover, even if Thornton’s Complaint contained sufficient factual
allegations to support a Fifth Amendment claim against the Labor
Department, the Labor Department correctly asserts that it would fail
for another reason.
“Civil actions against state officers for
violations of federal constitutional rights are governed by 42 U.S.C. §
1983.”
Thibeaux v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 275 F. App’x 889, 892 (11th
Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Thornton’s Fifth Amendment claim against the
Labor Department would fail because the Labor Department is a division
of the State of Georgia and is not a “person” subject to suit under
§ 1983.
E.g., Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989).
5
that attempted claim fails.
Third, to the extent that Thornton
is attempting to state a claim for denial of state unemployment
benefits, he has asserted no factual basis for such a claim.
Moreover,
Georgia
unemployment
law
provides
benefit
review
process
court
county
where
the
O.C.G.A. § 34-8-223(b).
sufficient
facts
unemployment
superior
to
must
the
support
in
and
be
scheme
state
appeals
of
“in
superior
filed
employee
for
was
the
last
the
employed.”
Therefore, even if Thornton had alleged
benefits,
court—not
extensive
determinations,
administrative
of
an
a
claim
jurisdiction
this
is
Court—and
for
denial
proper
any
of
in
a
attempted
state
Georgia
claim
denial of state unemployment benefits therefore fails.
for
Finally,
Thornton failed to allege any facts to support his claims that
the Labor Department, the U.S. Probation Office or the Albany DMV
discriminated against him because of his race, committed identity
theft, falsified documents, aided and abetted murder or defamed
him; therefore, these attempted claims all fail.
these
reasons,
the
Court
concludes
that
For all of
Thornton’s
Complaint
fails to state a claim against the Labor Department, the Albany
DMV
and
the
Department’s
U.S.
Motion
Thornton’s
claims
Albany
are
DMV
Probation
to
against
also
Office.
Dismiss
the
(ECF
U.S.
dismissed.
Therefore,
See
No.
Probation
9)
the
is
Office
Labor
granted.
and
the
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(requiring a court to dismiss in forma pauperis action if the
6
court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,”
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or “seeks
monetary
relief
against
a
defendant
who
is
immune
from
such
relief”); accord Thibeaux, 275 F. App’x at 890-93 (affirming sua
sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915); see also Shanks,
451 F. App’x at 817 (“The same standards governing dismissals
under
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
12(b)(6)
apply
to
dismissals
under
§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).”).
II.
Claims Against Albany Housing Authority
Turning
to
Thornton’s
claims
against
the
Albany
Housing
Authority, Thornton appears to allege that he applied for a job
with
the
Albany
Housing
Authority
because of his race or color.
Thornton
alleges
that
he
and
that
he
was
not
hired
See Compl. 6, ECF No. 1-1 at 4.
applied
for
an
open
maintenance
supervisor or maintenance foreman position, and he signed the
application “James E. Thornton, Sr.”
Id.
The next day, Thornton
received a card in the mail addressed to “James Thornton” that
stated “Thank you for your interest.”
met
the
requirements
in[ter]view.”
Id.
“to
Based
get
the
on
Id.
job
these
Thornton believed he
or
at
leas[t]
circumstances,
an[]
Thornton
concluded that he was being discriminated against based on his
race or color.
The
Court
Id.
construes
Thornton’s
claims
against
the
Albany
Housing Authority as race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. §
7
1981 (“§ 1981”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Under these statutes,
it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against employment
applicants based on race.
BellSouth
Telecomms.,
372
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a); Jackson v.
F.3d
1250,
1270
(11th
Cir.
2004)
(explaining elements of § 1981 race discrimination claim).
To
state a race discrimination claim under either statute, Thornton
must allege facts establishing that (1) he is a member of a
racial minority, (2) the Albany Housing Authority discriminated
against Thornton by failing to hire him, and (3) Thornton’s race
was
a
motivating
decision.
factor
in
the
Albany
Housing
Authority’s
E.g., Jackson, 372 F.3d at 1270; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
2(a), (m).
Here, based on a liberal reading of the Complaint,
Thornton did allege that the Albany Housing Authority failed to
hire him.
But Thornton did not make any specific allegations
regarding his race.
alleged
that
the
More importantly, Thornton only summarily
Albany
Housing
Authority’s
decision
was
motivated by race, and Thornton did not allege any facts that
support
an
inference
Housing
Authority.
that
racial
Rather,
animus
Thornton
motivated
simply
the
alleged
Albany
that
he
received an acknowledgment card addressed to “James Thornton” the
day after he applied for a job with the Albany Housing Authority.
The only specific allegation regarding racial discrimination is:
“You can’t get a letter to a person the next day, now this [is]
8
what got my attention, that I was being discriminated by Race of
Color [sic].”
Compl. 6, ECF No. 1-1 at 4.
Thornton’s conclusory
allegations merely state legal conclusions and do not provide the
Albany Housing Authority with fair notice of the factual grounds
on which the Complaint rests.
Therefore, the Court finds that
Thornton’s Complaint fails to state a claim against the Albany
Housing
Authority
therefore
grants
for
the
race
discrimination,
Albany
Housing
and
the
Authority’s
Court
Motion
to
Dismiss.
III. Claims Against Other Defendants
Thornton’s
Defendants:
remaining
(1)
Jacksonville,
claims
“Blue/Fast
Florida,
(2)
are
Delivery
Vicki
against
the
Expediting
Washington
of
following
Streak”
Blue
of
Streak
Couriers in Leesburg, Georgia, (3) James Thornton Construction of
Albany,
Georgia,
(4)
JLK
Hauling
and
Construction
Company
of
Albany, Georgia, (5) Lamar Stewart, and (6) Tronix Country of
Springfield, Virginia.4
the
Court
refers
to
Compl. 7, ECF No. 1-1 at 5.
these
Defendants
as
the
Collectively
“Computer
Claim
Defendants.”
4
The Court notes that, according to the Complaint, Thornton shares an
address with James Thornton Construction, which is named as a
Defendant. Compl. 7-8, ECF No. 1-1 at 5-6. The Court also notes that
Thornton listed JLK Hauling and Construction Company as a Plaintiff on
page one of the Complaint but as a Defendant on page seven.
Compare
Compl. 1, ECF No. 1 at 1, with Compl. 7, ECF No. 1-1 at 5. Finally,
the Court notes that Thornton names as Defendants “Lamar Stewart 1st,
Lamar Stewart 2nd, Lamar Stewart 3rd, Lamar Stewart 4th, the Whole
Family of Lamar Stewart.”
Compl. 7, ECF No. 1-1 at 5.
The Court
refers to these parties collectively as “Lamar Stewart.”
9
Thornton
claims
that
he
ordered
a
computer
from
Tronix
Country and paid a down payment from a bank account at
Federal Credit Union.
Id. 8, ECF No. 1-1 at 6.
DOCO
Thornton further
claims that a person from “Blue Fast Delivery Expediting, Streak”
delivered the computer to “someone else by the James Thornton
Construction [sic]” but had Thornton “sign (13) pages and initial
them, show I.D. and took picture of it [sic].”
1-1 at 7.
Id. at 9, ECF No.
Thornton contends that the Computer Claim Defendants
were “running [a] con game to defraud the bank out of [his] money
and to steal [his] computer and identity.”
factual
allegations,
the
Court
Id.
concludes
Based on these
that
Thornton
is
asserting a state law conversion claim against the Computer Claim
Defendants.5
Thornton
has
not
alleged
a
jurisdictional
claims against the Computer Claim Defendants.
basis
for
his
The Court finds
that it does not have original jurisdiction over the claims.
See
McCants v. Ala.-W. Fla. Conference of United Methodist Church,
Inc., 372 F. App’x 39, 40 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (noting
that a court “must inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte whenever it may be lacking”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
U.S.C. § 1331
The
Court
because
does
the
not
factual
5
have
jurisdiction
allegations
do
not
under
state
28
a
Thornton claims that these acts by the Computer Claim Defendants give
rise to claims of “conspiracy, mayh[e]m, identity thef[t] [and]
defamation of [character].” Compl. 9, ECF No. 1-1 at 7.
10
federal
question
claim.
The
Court
also
does
not
have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is not complete
diversity of citizenship among the parties; Thornton is a citizen
of Georgia, as are several of the Computer Claim
Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
over these claims, and they are dismissed.6
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
set
forth
above,
the
Court
grants
the
Georgia Department of Labor’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and
the Albany Housing Authority’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12).
The Court dismisses Thornton’s claims against the U.S. Probation
Office and the Albany DMV under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and
the
Court
dismisses
Thornton’s
remaining
claims
for
lack
of
subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of August, 2012.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Even if the Court had not dismissed Thornton’s claims over which this
Court
may
arguably
have
original
jurisdiction,
supplemental
jurisdiction over the claims against the Computer Claim Defendants
would be improper because the claims are not “so related to claims in
the action” over which the Court has original jurisdiction that “they
form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?