Gibbons v. Williams

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; DENYING AS MOOT 13 Defendant's Motion for Sanctions; GRANTING 18 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; DENYING 21 Defendant's Motion for Sanctions; GRANTING 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; and GRANTING 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/30/2013. Counsel directed to read Order in its entirety for critical information. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:12-CV-136-BO

MICHAEL J. GIBBONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended
complaint and motion for sanctions. Plaintiff has responded, 1 and the matters are ripe for ruling.
For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss is granted but the court declines to
impose sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a North Carolina-licensed landscape architect who filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a former vice-chair and chair of the North Carolina Board of Landscape
Architecture (NC BLA) seeking money damages. The amended complaint alleges that defendant
failed to properly investigate a complaint filed by plaintiff against his former employer for failure
to comply with the rules relating to the supervision of work by unlicensed landscape architects.
Plaintiff contends that through his inaction, defendant caused plaintiff to suffer loss of income
and loss of property due to his loss of employment following his complaint about his employer,
as well as the diminution in value of plaintiff's professional license.

1

Because the Court has considered plaintiff's response to the instant motion, his motions
to extend time to respond [DE 23 & 24] are GRANTED.

DISCUSSION
The NC BLAis an agency of the State ofNorth Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 89A-3(a).
Plaintiffs amended complaint specifically alleges that defendant, an individual, is being sued in
his official capacity as vice-chair or chair of the NC BLA. A suit against a state official in his
official capacity "is no different from a suit against the State itself." Will v. Michigan Dep't of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58,71 (1989) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)).
"[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are 'persons' under § 1983"
and are therefore not subject to suit. !d.; see also Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990)

("Will establishes that the State and arms of the State ... are not subject to suit under § 1983 in
either federal court or state court."). Moreover, "it is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment
bars a suit by private parties to recover money damages from the state or its alter egos acting in
their official capacities." Huang v. Bd. ofGovernors ofUniv. ofN Carolina, 902 F.2d 1134,
1138 (4th Cir. 1990).
In light of the foregoing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and defendant's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted.
Defendant further asks the Court to impose sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for filing a
clearly baseless complaint. Sanctions may be imposed when pleadings filed are not wellgrounded in law or fact or when pleadings are filed merely for the purposes of harassment or
delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c); see also In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 513 (4th Cir. 1990).
Though the Court agrees that plaintiffs claims have no basis in law and are plainly barred
by long-standing maxims, the Court is not required under the rule to impose sanctions. See e.g.

Cabell v. Petty, 810 F.2d 463,466 (4th Cir. 1987) (citing former Rule 11 which stated that
2

.

sanctions shall be imposed upon a finding that the rule had been violated). Because the Court
finds that the imposition of sanctions here would not serve the stated purpose of Rule 11 to
"deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated," the Court
declines to impose sanctions in this instance. Counsel and plaintiff are cautioned, however, not
to repeat their actions and file further complaints related to these claims without ensuring that
they are well-grounded in law and are not being filed for some improper purpose.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motions to extend time to respond [DE 23 & 24] are
GRANTED, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint [DE 18] is
GRANTED, and defendant's motion for sanctions [DE 21] is DENIED. All other pending
motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this

)V

day of August, 2013.

T RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU

3