Webster v. Shumaker et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A White Dismissing Complaint with prejudice, dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) (kjp, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Shirley D. Webster,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 18-CIV-222-RAW-FHM
Elizabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk of the
Court; Judge Moritz; Judge McKay;
Judge Clara Egan; and
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Complaint [Docket No. 1] in this matter was filed on April 23, 2018.1
On
May 2, 2018, the case was reassigned to this court [Docket No. 4].
The court construes Plaintiff’s allegations liberally as she is pro se. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Plaintiff argues that she was defrauded of twenty-four
million seven hundred thousand dollars by Defendants. All Defendants are officers of the
court, either in this court or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff has previously brought other actions in this court, but two cases are
specifically mentioned in the Complaint and its exhibits (Case Nos. 17-CV-312-GKF-JFJ;
and 18-CV-205-CVE-JFJ).
two cases.
The court takes judicial notice of the docket sheets of these
See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (courts
The court notes that the attachments to the Complaint reflect that Plaintiff is also known as
Shirley Dionne Garrett.
1
1
have “discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records ... concerning matters that
bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”).
See also, St. Louis Baptist
Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979)(“[F]ederal courts, in
appropriate circumstances, may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and
without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at
issue.”)
The first–referenced matter (17-CV-312) was originally filed on June 2, 2017. It
is styled Shirley Dionne Garrett and Dewayne M. Garrett v. Lotus Investment Funds Inc.,
LLC. On October 3, 2017, the Honorable Gregory K. Frizzell entered an order granting
various motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on
October 10, 2017.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its Decision on
February 28, 2018, and the Mandate was issued on March 22, 2018.
The second-referenced matter (18-CV-205) was removed to the Northern District
of Oklahoma on April 13, 2018 from the Washington County District Court.
It is styled
Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC v. Shirley Dionne Garrett and Dwayne M. Garrett.
An
Opinion and Order was entered on April 19, 2018, remanding the case to the Oklahoma
state court.
Plaintiff alleges that the manner in which the cases were conducted shows the
alleged corruption.
Plaintiff alleges that the Opinion in the second case was filed “before
the mandate was up” in the first case.
Both cases apparently involve Plaintiff and a
dispute with Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC.
2
The majority of Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, makes allegations regarding a
divorce decree and the award of marital property between Plaintiff’s nephew (Dwayne M.
Garrett) and the nephew’s ex-wife (Carlotta Lowe Gordon Garrett).
That matter has been
litigated a number of times in this court.2
Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
A district court has the authority to sua sponte dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)
if it is “ ‘patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged.” Andrews
v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1074 n. 2 (10th Cir.2007); see also McKinney v. State of
Oklahoma, Dep't of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir.1991). The court must
determine whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
To survive dismissal, a complaint must allege sufficient facts which, taken as true,
state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A complaint is plausible if there are sufficient facts
to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Id. That is, the factual allegations must be enough to raise
a right to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
Diaz v. United States Attorney Gen., 669 F. App'x 949 (10th Cir. 2016).
A claim should be dismissed when the complaint provides no “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “Once a claim has been stated adequately,
In the Order dated April 19, 2018 [Case No. 18-CV-205-CVE-JFJ, Docket No. 7], the
Honorable Claire V. Eagan stated that this Plaintiff may have filing restrictions imposed against
her if she continues to file frivolous cases in this court.
2
3
it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the
complaint.” Id. at 562. For the purpose of making the dismissal determination, a court
must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, even if doubtful in
fact, and must construe the allegations in the light most favorable to claimant. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555. However, a court need not accept as true those allegations that are
conclusory in nature. Erikson v. Pawnee Cnty. Bd. Of Cnty. Com'rs, 263 F.3d 1151,
1154–55 (10th Cir .2001). “[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual averments
are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.3d
1106, 1109–10 (10th Cir.1991).
In the instant case, the Complaint claims that Defendants prepared “false writings
with the intent to conceal defrauding” Plaintiff. The only assertions Plaintiff offers in
this regard is the timing of the orders entered in the previous cases. Additionally, this
court has no legal basis to exercise jurisdiction over a divorce decree and the award of
marital property that has been litigated multiple times in the state court.
Rule 15(a) states that “leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so
requires.” However, leave need not be granted where amendment would be futile. See
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R–1 v. Moody's Investor's Servs., Inc ., 175 F.3d 848, 859
(10th Cir.1999); Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Lab, 630 F.2d 1383, 1389 (10th
Cir.1980) (“Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to
amend need not be granted.”).
Finally, a “trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte without notice where the
4
claimant cannot possibly win relief.” McKinney v. State of Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 364
(10th Cir. 1991).
Immunity
From the face of the Complaint, all allegations against the Defendants were
regarding the performance of their official duties. As to Defendants Moritz, McKay,
Egan (sic) and Frizzell, their official duties were as members of the judiciary. As to
Defendant Shumaker, her official duties were as Clerk of the Court.
The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity shields judges from liability for
their "official adjudicative acts." Lundahl v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 939 (10th Cir.
2002). The absolute judicial immunity doctrine is founded on "a general principle
of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice" - "that a judicial
officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, should be free to act upon his own
convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself." Id. (quoting
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,355 (1978)).
The doctrine of absolute judicial immunity applies to all judges. Id. There are
only two exceptions to the doctrine: "(1) when the act is not taken in the judge's
judicial capacity, and (2) when the act, though judicial in nature, is taken in the
complete absence of all jurisdiction." Stein v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of
N.M., 520 F.3d 1183, 1195 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal brackets and quotation marks
omitted)(quoting Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)). As to the first
5
exception, whether an action is within a judge's judicial capacity relates "to the nature
of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to
the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial
capacity." Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12 (quoting Stump, 435 U.S. at 362).
As to the second exception, the scope of a judge's jurisdiction is "construed
broadly where the issue is the immunity of the judge." Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57. For
this exception to apply, the judge must have acted "in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction." Id. The Supreme Court provides an example: "if a probate judge, with
jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a criminal case, he would be acting
in the clear absence of jurisdiction." Id. at 357 n.7.
As for Defendant Shumaker, the allegations against her involve her office filing the
orders of the judges. Those performing ministerial acts at the direction of a judge are also
entitled to absolute immunity. Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 869 (10th
Cir.2000).
Claim Preclusion
Plaintiff brings this latest action to rectify an alleged injustice to her through the
decisions entered in the earlier cases filed in this court (the two case numbers referenced
above). Those two cases dealt specifically with Plaintiff’s ongoing dispute with Lotus
Investment Fund 1, LLC.
The preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue
preclusion, which are collectively referred to as “res judicata.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
6
U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). In an application of res judicata,
the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Pelt
v. Utah, 539 F.3d 1271, 1280 (10th Cir. 2008). “Claim preclusion generally refers to the
effect of a prior judgment in foreclosing successive litigation of the very same claim,
whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.” New
Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001).
Claim preclusion requires “(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action;
(2) identity of the parties in the two suits; and (3) identity of the cause of action in both
suits.” MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2005). As previously
stated, the cases involving the Garrett divorce and property settlement have been litigated
ad nauseum in both the state and federal courts.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff states that the real property at issue was transferred in
2004.
Plaintiff has litigated against Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC on numerous
occasions, both in the federal and state courts in an attempt to recover the real property
lost through the Garrett divorce. An attachment to the Complaint shows a document
entitled “Appellant’s Appeal” in the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma regarding
the same real property mentioned in the instant Complaint in this case. There has been
no new contracts or transactions involving these parties – all claims are a result of the
same ongoing dispute with Lotus Investment, and the divorce and property settlement
between Dwayne M. Garrett and Carlotta Lowe Gordon Garrett. The court considers the
decisions entered in the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma and the Tenth Circuit
7
Court of Appeals to be the final judgments on the merits. This court finds, therefore, that
all three elements are met for claim preclusion.
Additionally, the court has found the following cases through the court’s PACER
website (www.Pacer.gov) as well as the Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN.net), and
takes judicial notice of them:
Date Filed
Court
Case Number
Style of Case
8/04/2014
Washington
County District
Court
Washington
County District
Court
U.S. District Court
- Northern District
of Oklahoma
Supreme Court of
the State of
Oklahoma
Supreme Court of
the State of
Oklahoma
U.S. District Court
- Northern District
of Oklahoma
U.S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth
Circuit
U.S. District Court
- Northern District
of Oklahoma
U.S. District Court
- Northern District
of Oklahoma
CJ-2014-147
Shirley Garrett, et al. v. Lotus
Investment Fund 1, LLC, et al.
CJ-2015-213
Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC
v. Garrett
2016-CV-173
Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC
v. Shirley D. Webster
SD-115012
Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC
v. Shirley Dionne Garrett and
Dwayne M. Garrett
Dwayne M. Garrett and Shirley
Webster v. Governor Mary
Fallin and Stan Florence
Shirley Webster v. Lotus
Investment Funds, Inc. LLC
9/24/2015
4/01/2016
5/19/2016
4/18/2017
6/02/2017
10/11/2017
2/27/2018
4/13/2018
O-115961
2017-CV-312
2017-CV-5105 Shirley D. Garrett v. Lotus
Investment Funds, et al.
2018-CV-110
Lotus Investment Fund 1, LLC
v. Shirley Webster
2018-CV-205
Lotus Investment Funds, 1, LLC
v. Shirley D. Webster
8
4/23/2018
4/25/2018
U.S. District Court
- Northern District
of Oklahoma
U.S. District Court
- Eastern District
of Oklahoma
2018-CV-222
Shirley D. Webster v. Shumaker,
et al.
2018-CV-128
Shirley D. Webster v. Shumaker,
et al.
As can be seen by this list, Plaintiff has litigated this matter through the Oklahoma
State District Courts and the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in the United States District
Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma, as well as the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“The fundamental policies underlying the doctrine of res judicata (or claim
preclusion) are finality, judicial economy, preventing repetitive litigation and forumshopping, and the interest in bringing litigation to an end.” Plotner v. AT&T Corp., 224
F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2000). To allow Plaintiff to bring the instant claims now would
impair the rights established in the original proceedings. See Campbell v. City of Spencer,
777 F.3d 1073, 1083 (10th Cir. 2014). Additionally, in light of the above–listed cases,
any efforts for judicial economy, preventing repetitive litigation and obtaining finality
have been circumvented by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has had her day in court, repeatedly.
Conclusion
The claims against all Defendants are for actions taken during the course of their
official duties as officers of the court. Those claims are, therefore, dismissed under the
doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the allegations listed in the complaint do not create a claim upon which
9
this lawsuit can proceed. The court finds that Plaintiff’s action fails to state a claim on
which relief can be granted, and any possible amendment to the complaint would be futile.
The court finds that Plaintiff shall not be granted leave to amend the complaint should she
request such relief. Additionally, claim preclusion or res judicata require dismissal of
the action.
It is ordered that Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with prejudice for the above-stated
reasons.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2018.
_________________________________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
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?