HALL v. HALL et al

Filing 32

ORDER converting 17 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by CAROLYN SULLIVAN, CULLEN TALTON and 21 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by SUSAN HALL into MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Accordingly, the parties are given 14 days to submit any material pertinent to the motion. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/24/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
RICHARD LEWIS HALL, JR.,

Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN HALL, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-82 (MTT)

ORDER
The Defendants Susan Hall, Sheriff Cullen Talton, and Carolyn Sullivan have
separately moved to dismiss Plaintiff Richard Lewis Hall, Jr.’s claims pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Docs. 17; 21. The
Plaintiff has responded to both motions. Docs. 20; 26. In doing so, the Plaintiff has
submitted materials outside the pleadings for consideration by the Court. See, e.g.,
Docs. 20-1; 20-2; 26-1; 26-2. In light of the Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court finds it
appropriate to consider these materials, rather than exclude them, in determining
whether the Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. So, the Court converts the Defendants’
motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Because of his pro se status, the Court advises the Plaintiff that, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment can be granted only if there are no
1

The Court also notes there are issues concerning the Defendants’ choice to assert this affirmative
defense in their motions to dismiss, which the Defendants did not address in their motions, including to
what degree the Plaintiff was required to plead facts to overcome the statute of limitations bar. See Amy
v. Anderson, 2017 WL 1098823, *1 n.1 (M.D. Ga.). Converting the motions to dismiss into motions for
summary judgment is not only best in light of the Plaintiff’s pro se status and his presentation of materials
outside the pleadings but also alleviates the issue surrounding the Plaintiff’s pleading burden by allowing
him an opportunity to file any information he may have to overcome the Defendants’ affirmative defense.

genuine disputes as to any material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot simply rely on the
pleadings but rather, to establish the existence of a genuine fact dispute, must file
affidavits, depositions, or other materials to persuade the Court. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Thus, although the Plaintiff has already submitted materials
outside the pleadings, he is advised that he may submit further factual information in his
possession addressing why his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), the Court ORDERS that the Defendants’
motions to dismiss are converted into motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, the
parties are given 14 days to submit any material pertinent to the motion. See Fed R.
Civ. P. 12(d).

SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of August, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-