Stevens v. Montreat College et al
Filing
15
ORDER granting 2 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and the Plaintiff's Complaint in the Current Action [Doc. 1-1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's 5 and 14 Motion for Extensi on of Time, 6 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and 7 Motion for Court to Reverse Decision are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this civil case. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 1/27/2025. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (slm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00235-MR-WCM
RYAN CRAIG STEVENS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MONTREAT COLLEGE, DR. PAUL
)
J. MAURER, DR. DANIEL T.
)
BENNETT, DR. DOROTHEA K.
)
SHUMAN, and DR. RYAN T. ZWART, )
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 2], the Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of
Time [Docs. 5, 14], the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint [Doc. 6], and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Reverse Decision
Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7].
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2022, the Plaintiff Ryan Craig Stevens (the “Plaintiff”)
filed an action (the “Original Action”) in Buncombe County Superior Court
against the Defendants Montreat College, Dr. Paul J. Maurer, Dr. Daniel T.
Bennett, Dr. Dorothea K. Shuman, and Dr. Ryan T. Zwart (collectively, the
“Defendants”). [Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM: Doc. 1]. On October 6,
2023, the Defendants removed the Original Action to this Court. [Id.]. The
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in the Original Action, the operative
complaint in the matter, alleged several federal civil rights claims against the
Defendants related to the Plaintiff’s time as a student at, and his eventual
expulsion from, Montreat College. [Id.].
On January 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint,
and on January 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint. [Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM: Docs. 17, 20]. On January 24,
2024, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
and struck the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. [Case 1:23-cv-00284MR-WCM: Doc. 21 at 8]. Nonetheless, on April 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a
fourth amended complaint1 in the Original Action, which asserted twenty-six
claims against the Defendants. [Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM: Doc. 45 at
1–4]. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third
Amended Complaint and a Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended
Complaint. [Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM: Docs. 54, 55].
1 The Plaintiff labeled this amended complaint as his “Third Amended Complaint,” but it
was in fact his fourth. [See Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM: Docs. 1, 14, 17, 45].
2
On June 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this action (the “Current Action”) in
Buncombe County Superior Court against the same Defendants, asserting
the same twenty-six claims that he asserted in his disallowed, and ultimately
stricken, fourth amended complaint from the Original Action. [Doc. 1-1 at 2–
5]. On September 10, 2024, the Defendants removed the Current Action to
this Court. [Doc. 1]. On September 27, the Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 2] in the Current Action.
On November 4, 2024, in the Original Action, the Court denied the
Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend, struck the Plaintiff’s fourth amended
complaint, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice. [Case 1:23-cv-00284-MR-WCM: Doc. 63 at 13–14].
On November 22, 2024, the Court entered a Roseboro Order in the
Current Action, ordering the Plaintiff to respond to the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss by December 4, 2024. [Doc. 4]. On December 4, 2024, rather than
responding to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Extension of Time [Doc. 5], a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint [Doc. 6], and a Motion for Court to Reverse Decision Granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7].
The Defendants filed responses in opposition to the Plaintiff’s motions.
[Docs. 8, 9, 10]. The Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file replies. [Doc.
3
11]. In a text-only order entered December 30, 2024, the Court granted the
Plaintiff an extension of time until January 6, 2025, to file any reply. The
Plaintiff was specifically instructed to either hand-deliver his replies by
January 6th or have them postmarked by that date. [Text-Only Order entered
Dec. 30, 2024]. The Plaintiff hand-delivered his Reply [Doc. 13] on January
14, 2025, along with a motion to accept the pleading as timely filed. [Doc.
14].
II.
DISCUSSION
“Under res judicata principles, a prior judgment between the same
parties can preclude subsequent litigation on those matters actually and
necessarily resolved in the first adjudication.” In re Varat Enterprises, Inc.,
81 F.3d 1310, 1314–15 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90,
94 (1980)). Res judicata “encompasses two concepts: claim preclusion and
issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel.” Id. at 1315. Under the doctrine of
claim preclusion:
a claim in a prior lawsuit will bar a subsequent claim
if the party moving for claim preclusion can
demonstrate three elements: (1) the parties in the
two actions are identical or are in privity; (2) the
judgment in the first action was a final judgment on
the merits; and (3) the “claims in the two actions are
identical.”
4
SV Int’l, Inc. v. Fu Jian Quanyu Indus. Co., 820 F. Supp. 2d 677, 683
(M.D.N.C. 2011) (quoting Bouchat v. Bon–Ton Dep’t Stores, Inc., 506 F.3d
315, 326–27 (4th Cir. 2007)).
A “dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) is a ‘judgment on the merits.’” Federated Dep’t Stores,
Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (citing Angel v. Bullington, 330
U.S. 183, 190 (1947)).
In regard to whether claims are identical, the
“question is ‘whether the claim presented in the new litigation ‘arises out of
the same transaction or series of transactions as the claim resolved by the
prior judgment.’” SV Int’l, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 684 (quoting Pittston Co. v.
United States, 199 F.3d 694, 704 (4th Cir. 1999)). “When two suits proceed
simultaneously, as in this case, res judicata effect is given to the first
judgment rendered.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496,
500 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R.R. v. Schendel, 270
U.S. 611 (1926)).
Here, the Plaintiff sued the same Defendants in the Original Action and
the Current Action; the Plaintiff’s claims in the Original Action arise out of the
same series of transactions as the claims in the Current Action; and the Court
dismissed the Original Action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
5
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff’s Current Action because it is
barred by claim preclusion. See SV Int’l, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 683.
This is one of at least three actions that the Plaintiff has filed related to
his time at Montreat College, all of which address the same underlying
events and raise similar claims. The other two actions are addressed by the
Court in separate Orders entered contemporaneously herewith. Because
the Plaintiff has shown himself to be an abusive and prolific filer, the Court
hereby issues the following warning to the Plaintiff. Litigants do not have an
absolute and unconditional right of access to the courts in order to prosecute
frivolous, successive, abusive or vexatious actions. See Demos v. Keating,
33 F. App’x 918, 920 (10th Cir. 2002); In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945 (4th
Cir. 1997). District courts have inherent power to control the judicial process
and to redress conduct which abuses that process. Silvestri v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001).
The Plaintiff is hereby informed that future frivolous filings will result in
the imposition of a pre-filing review system. See Vestal v. Clinton, 106 F. 3d
553, 555 (4th Cir. 1997). If such a system is placed in effect, pleadings
presented to the Court which are not made in good faith and which do not
contain substance, will be summarily dismissed as frivolous.
See id.
Thereafter, if such writings persist, the pre-filing system may be modified to
6
include an injunction from filings. See In re Martin–Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254,
1262 (2d Cir. 1984).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 2] is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s
Complaint in the Current Action [Doc. 1-1] is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension
of Time [Docs. 5, 14], the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint [Doc. 6], and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Reverse Decision
Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this civil case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 27, 2025
7
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?