Rogers et al v. Indiana Supreme Court et al

Filing 67

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 31 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants Stephen H David, Indiana Supreme Court, Mark Massa, Robert D Rucker, Loretta H Rush, Geoffrey G Slaughter; DENYING 51 MOTION for a Hearing With the District Court Judge to Argue the Is sue of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant L.R. 65-1 by Estate Plaintiff Dexter Rogers; DEEMING MOOT 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant FRCP 56(a) and N.D. L.R. 56.1(a) and FRCP 12(d) by Estate Plaintiff Dexter Rogers. All Defendants having now been dismissed, Clerk DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/1/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DEXTER ROGERS, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the
ESTATE OF CARRIE BELL ROGERS
and as Personal Representative of the
ESTATE OF PREMIUS ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA SUPREME COURT et al.,
Defendants.

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

CAUSE NO.: 1:16-CV-364-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 31], filed by the
Defendants Hon. Stephen H. David, Hon. Mark Massa, Hon. Robert D. Rucker, Hon. Loretta H.
Rush, Hon. Geoffrey G. Slaughter and the Indiana Supreme Court (collectively “the
Defendants”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The pro se Plaintiff, Dexter
Rogers, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carrie Bell Rogers, and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Premius Rogers, filed the Complaint [ECF No. 1]
against the Defendants on October 17, 2016, in relation to a medical malpractice case in the
Allen Superior Court. Also before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing [ECF No.
51]. The Court will consider this Motion in conjunction with the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
For the reasons stated in this Opinion and Order, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s
claims against the Defendants are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Defendants are
entitled to immunity, and the issues presented by the Plaintiff pose considerations making
abstention appropriate. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the Plaintiff’s
pending Motions are termed as moot.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir.
2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although pro se complaints are to be liberally construed and are held
to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers, Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013), and a court may also consider facts alleged in a pro se
plaintiff’s brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss when considering the sufficiency of the
complaint (if the facts are “consistent with the allegations in the complaint”), Smith v. Dart, 803
F.3d 304, 311 (7th Cir. 2015), the factual allegations in the complaint must nevertheless be
enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual
allegations are accepted as true at the pleading stage, but “allegations in the form of legal
conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Adams, 742 F.3d at 728 (internal
citations omitted).

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
The Plaintiff’s mother, Carrie Bell Rogers, was a patient at Parkview Hospital, Inc.
(“Parkview”) (formerly a defendant in this proceeding), and died on August 23, 2011. (Comp. ¶
9; ECF No. 1.) The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Indiana Department of Insurance, as required
by Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act, on June 25, 2013. (Id. ¶ 10.) The Plaintiff claims that
Parkview was negligent in its care of his mother, resulting in her death. The Plaintiff also alleges
2

that Parkview violated Title VI when Parkview allegedly denied care and treatment to his mother
while she was a patient of the hospital. The Plaintiff alleges that the care his mother received was
inferior to the care that white patients in similar circumstances received. (Id.)
A discovery dispute arose between the Plaintiff and Parkview in the state court
proceedings, which led the Plaintiff to file a motion to compel. (Id. ¶ 10–12.) The Allen County
Superior Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion and ordered Parkview to produce certain
documents and make available its CEO, Michael Packnett, for a discovery deposition. (Id. Ex.
A 88–89.) Parkview did not produce its CEO, incurred sanctions, and then appealed the Allen
County Superior Court’s decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals. (Id. ¶ 13.)
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the Allen Superior Court’s decision and found
that the Plaintiff’s requested discovery deposition was outside the scope of Indiana Trial
Rule 26. 1 (Id.) The Plaintiff claims that Parkview failed to justify its refusal to produce its CEO
for a deposition. The Plaintiff also claims that the Court of Appeal’s decision was erroneous and
violated his due process rights. (Id. ¶ 34.)
The Plaintiff then filed a petition to transfer, which the Indiana Supreme Court denied.
(Id. ¶¶ 13, 34.) The Plaintiff alleges that the Indiana Supreme Court should have granted his
petition to transfer, and that its failure to do so violated the Plaintiff’s due process rights.
(Id. ¶ 34.) After the Indiana Supreme Court denied the transfer, counsel for Parkview contacted
John Whiteleather, Jr. (also a former defendant in this proceeding), whom the parties had
selected as chairman of the medical review panel that was to review the Plaintiff’s claim, and
asked him to set a schedule for evidentiary submissions to the medical review panel. (Id. ¶ 46.)
The Plaintiff claims he was not ready to proceed to the panel based on the Court of Appeals’

1

The Plaintiff has also filed a suit against various judges of the Allen County Superior Court and Parkview
Hospital, Inc. That case was dismissed on March 27, 2017 (1:16-CV-40-TLS-SLC).

3

decision holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the discovery he sought. (Id. ¶¶ 48–49.) The
Plaintiff claims that Whiteleather attempted to move the panel proceedings forward because the
Plaintiff is African-American and Parkview’s counsel in the state court proceedings is white. (Id.
¶ 49.)
The Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a judgment declaring that the acts of the Defendants
were unlawful and unconstitutional, award him damages, restrain the Defendants from violating
the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and issue a preliminary injunction. (Id. 21.)

ANALYSIS
The Defendants assert that they are entitled to dismissal because: (1) the Plaintiff’s
claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (2) the Defendants are absolutely immune
from suit and (3) the Younger doctrine requires that this Court abstain from deciding the
Plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief. If the Court proceeds into an analysis of
whether the Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d, the Defendants argue that: (1) the Defendants are not “persons” subject to suit under
§ 1983 and are thus entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and (2) the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court has addressed these arguments
below.
A.

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman

Doctrine. Under the doctrine, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review or reverse orders
issued in state court or state administrative proceedings. See Gilbert v. Ill. Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d
896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010); Lewis v. Anderson, 308 F.3d 768, 771–72 (7th Cir. 2002). In essence,
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “prevents a state-court loser from bringing suit in federal court in
4

order to effectively set aside the state-court judgment.” Gilbert, 591 F.3d at 900. The doctrine
applies “even though the state court judgment might be erroneous or even unconstitutional.” Id.
“[A] plaintiff may not seek a reversal of a state court judgment simply by casting his complaint
in the form of a civil rights action.” Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 1993). A federal
court is free to entertain claims that are independent of any state court proceedings. Gilbert, 591
F.3d at 900.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s only claims against them concern the denial of
his petition to transfer. The Plaintiff asserts this Court has jurisdiction by generally invoking
Article III of the Constitution. When “the injury is executed through court order, there is no
conceivable way to redress the wrong without overturning the order of the state court.” Sykes v.
Cook County Circuit Court Probate Division, 837 F.3d 736, 2016 WL 4784034 at 5* (7th Cir.
2016). “Rooker- Feldman does not permit such an outcome.” Id. The Court cannot discern any
independent claims from the Plaintiff’s Complaint—at least not any that give fair notice of what
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests—that would provide a jurisdictional basis
independent of the Plaintiff seeking redress for denial of his order to transfer in the state court
proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the
Plaintiff’s claims.

B.

Judicial Immunity

1.

The Justices
The Defendants argue that even if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply, they are

immune from suit because they are judicial officers and the Plaintiff’s suit concerns actions taken
by the Defendants in their judicial capacity. Judicial officers are “not liable to civil actions for
5

their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdictions, and are alleged to
have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355–56 (1978).
“The doctrine of judicial immunity is supported by a long-settled understanding that the
independent and impartial exercise of judgment vital to the judiciary might be impaired by
exposure to potential damages liability.” Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435
(1993). “[J]udicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice . . .”, Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citation omitted), nor is immunity defeated by allegations that
the judge conspired with non-immune persons, Pena v. Mattox, 84 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, judicial immunity includes protection from Title VI actions. McKnight v. Middleton,
669 F. Supp. 2d 507, 528 n 5 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 434 F. App’x. 32 (2d Cir. 2011); see also
Williams v. Mannlein, 637 F.App’x 221, 221 (7th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging that the district
court dismissed a Title VI suit against the state court judge “reason[ing] that the judge had
absolute immunity”). However, judicial immunity can be defeated where the judge’s acts were
not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity or were taken in the complete absence of all
jurisdiction. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11–12.
To aid in the determination of whether a particular act or omission is entitled to judicial
immunity, the Seventh Circuit has articulated the following factors to analyze: (1) the
expectations of the parties, i.e., whether the parties dealt with the judge as judge; (2) whether the
act is normally performed by a judge; and (3) whether the act or decision involves the exercise of
discretion or judgment, or is rather a ministerial act “which might as well have been committed
to a private person as to a judge.” Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted).

6

First, the Plaintiff himself agrees that the alleged violations of his rights occurred within
the purview of the judicial function (Pl.’s Resp. Br. 4; ECF No. 44) (“When the Indiana Supreme
Court upheld the Court of Appeals making up fictitious [o]rders of the [c]ourt to rely upon in
rendering their February 29, 2016 opinion it equates to extreme abuse of judicial discretion.”);
see also Stump, 435 U.S. at 360 (holding a judge immune from suit when “Respondents
themselves stated in their pleadings before the District Court that Judge Stump was . . . [,] at the
time he approved the petition[,] acting as a county circuit court justice.”).) Thus, the expectation
of the Plaintiff indicates that he understood and believed that he was dealing with the judges in
their official judicial roles.
Second, the claims against the justices concern their ruling on a motion to transfer. This
ruling is “normally performed by . . . judge[s] in [their] capacity as . . . judicial officer[s],” as
judges routinely rule on procedural motions during the course of litigation and have discretion to
admonish or sanction counsel for their conduct. Johnson v. Hanser, 607 F.App’x 581, 583 (7th
Cir. 2015).
Though Plaintiff argues that the justices willfully conducted themselves in a
discriminatory matter, (Pl.’s Resp. Br. 7), whether or not the judges acted in bad faith or malice
is not the relevant inquiry because judicial immunity applies even when the judicial actions “are
alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump, 435 U.S. at 355–56. Moreover,
judicial immunity applies even to Title VI actions. McKnight, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 528; Williams,
637 F.App’x at 221.
Upon analysis of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the record, this Court finds that the parties
engaged with the justices in their judicial capacities, in which the justices made a ruling within
their discretion and judgment. Accordingly, the Defendant Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court

7

are entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and the Plaintiff’s claims concerning actions taken by
these justices are barred.

2.

The Court
The Plaintiff also maintains the Indiana Supreme Court as a defendant entity in this case.

The Seventh Circuit has held that judicial immunity attaches to the “act or omission” at issue,
and not solely to the person. Dawson, 419 F.3d at 661; Wilson v. Kelkhoff, 86 F.3d 1438, 1445
(7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, because the Plaintiff’s allegation that he was improperly denied his
petition to transfer is an extension of his claims against the Justices of the Indiana Supreme
Court, this Court also dismisses the claim against the Indiana Supreme Court because judicial
immunity extends to the Indiana Supreme Court as well.

C.

Abstention
In his Prayer for Relief, the Plaintiff also appears to seek declaratory and injunctive relief,

asking the Court to “enjoin[] and temporarily restrain[]” the Defendants, direct the Defendants
“to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of” their alleged conduct
is eliminated, and “[f]or appropriate declaratory relief regarding the unlawful and
unconstitutional acts and practices of the Defendants.” (Compl. p. 21 ¶¶ A, C.) In effect, the
Plaintiff is seeking an injunction to reverse, amend, or otherwise enjoin the effects of the orders
made by the Indiana Supreme Court in the state case. This Court holds that the issues presented
by the Plaintiff pose considerations that make abstention appropriate under Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The basic principle of Younger abstention is that, absent extraordinary circumstances, a
federal court should not interfere with pending state judicial proceedings. Brunken v. Lance, 807
F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir. 1986). This principle, based on federalism and comity concerns,
8

particularly applies to civil proceedings when important state interests are involved. Id. (citing
Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 626–28 (1986));
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). The
Supreme Court has articulated three factors to aid in the determination of whether the Younger
abstention doctrine applies in a civil proceeding. A court should consider whether: (1) there is
“an ongoing state judicial proceeding”; (2) the “proceedings implicate important state interests”;
and (3) “there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional
challenges.” Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432.
Here, the parties have represented to the Court that the underlying state case is an
ongoing judicial proceeding in the Indiana state court system, thus fulfilling the first part of the
test. Second, this Court finds that Indiana has an important state interest in ensuring the integrity
of its court proceedings, including ensuring that its own state courts interpret the state’s rules and
conduct proceedings without interference. “An important motivation for the Supreme Court’s
decision to abstain in Younger was the notion of comity: ‘that is, a proper respect for state
functions, a recognition of the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate state
governments, and a continuance of the belief that the National Government will fare best if the
States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate
ways.’” Hickey v. Duffy, 827 F.2d 234, 245 (7th Cir. 1987) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44).
After review of the Plaintiff’s allegations in this case, the Court further finds that the
Plaintiff’s particular complaints implicate important Indiana state interests because the Plaintiff’s
allegations of racial bias stem from his dissatisfaction with applications of Indiana state law and
procedure—the Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendants complaining of discovery disputes
and party conduct, ultimately governed by Indiana’s Rules of Trial Procedure. These are matters

9

of Indiana law and procedure that should be determined by state courts without interference.
Accordingly, the Court abstains from acting as “a federal court instruct[ing] state officials on
how to conform their conduct to state law.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 90 (1984).
Finally, the Seventh Circuit has “decline[d] to presume that the Indiana courts . . . will
not discharge th[e] obligation” to protect a party’s federal rights. Lumen Constr., Inc. v. Brant
Constr. Co., 780 F.2d 691, 697 (7th Cir. 1985). Though the Plaintiff’s remaining claims
implicate purported violations of the Plaintiff’s federal rights by the Defendants other than those
that are the subject of the state court suit, these remaining claims ask this Court for declaratory
and injunctive relief to reverse or enjoin the Defendants’ rulings.
However, there is no need for this relief because the Plaintiff has an adequate
opportunity. See Duff El v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. Rural Hous. Serv., No. 07-C-031-C, 2007 WL
5582066, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2007) (holding in a case in which the plaintiff sued the state
court judge, “If petitioner believes that her rights are being violated in the context of the state
proceedings, she may raise her claims before [the state court judge] or on appeal to the [state
supreme court]”); see also Younger 401 U.S. at 45 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal
courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”).
In other words, if the Plaintiff believes the state court rulings are incorrect, he has an adequate
remedy of appellate review within the state court system. If the state court rulings are correct,
though they may be predicated on race, the Plaintiff has prevailed and no longer has the requisite
irreparable harm needed for relief. See Straw v. Indiana Supreme Court, No. 116-CV-03483 JMS
TAB, 2017 WL 289958, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2017) (holding that the party seeking an
injunction must show that “it has ‘no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if

10

a preliminary injunction is denied.’”) (quoting Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enters., Inc., 695
F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir. 2012)) (other citation omitted).
Accordingly, as in Johnson v. Lopinot, disposition of the state court action will resolve
the Plaintiff’s claims before this Court and thus, abstention by this Court is appropriate and
necessitates dismissal of this action. No. 09-CV-1009-JPG, 2010 WL 4595669, at *4 (S.D. Ill.
Nov. 4, 2010) (“Although a stay generally represents the extent of . . . abstention, dismissal is
warranted here. Disposition of the state-court action will assuredly do away with all claims
before this Court.”); see also Capital Leasing Co. v. F.D.I.C., 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993)
(“[A] court must dismiss the case without ever reaching the merits if it concludes that it has no
jurisdiction.”). The court in Johnson explained its rationale:
If [the plaintiff’s] direct appeal of her claim . . . proves successful,
there will be no need for this case to continue. Meanwhile, if the
[state appellate court] affirm[s the state court judge’s] ruling and/or
dismiss[es the plaintiff’s] appeal, this action would essentially
represent an impermissible collateral attack . . . . The Court trusts
the appellate courts . . . to rule appropriately if entry of the amended
judgment was truly incorrect as a matter of law. [The Plaintiff] has
not argued to the contrary, and the Court will not attempt to do so
for her.
Id. This rationale similarly applies in this case. Because the Plaintiff asks to enjoin pending state
civil proceedings, which concern the important state interest of applying and enforcing the state’s
law through the state’s own judiciary, and because the relief the Plaintiff seeks can be obtained
in the state court system, Younger abstention is appropriate. See Straw, 2017 WL 289958, at *3
(citing Barichello v. McDonald, 98 F.3d 948, 955 (7th Cir. 1996) (“When confronted with
circumstances that clearly implicate Younger concerns, a federal court must abstain.”).)

11

C.

The Defendants’ Remaining Arguments
Because the Court has determined that the Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity

and the Court will not interfere with matters of state court proceedings, the Court declines to
address the remainder of the arguments posited by the Defendants regarding the sufficiency of
the Plaintiff’s allegations, as these arguments are moot.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss of the
Defendants [ECF No. 31]. Because the Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed, the Court DENIES the
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing [ECF No. 51]. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 62] is now MOOT. All Defendants having now been dismissed, the Clerk of Court is
directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED on June 1, 2017.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12