IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division RICHARD M. SIMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-745—-HEH ) CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, et al.) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss & Granting Plaintiff Leave to Amend) This matter is before the Court on Defendants City of Fredericksburg; Yvonne J. Nageotte; and Nageotte, Nageotte, Nageotte, PC’s (collectively, the “Defendants” Motions to Dismiss (the “Motions,” ECF Nos. 8, 12), filed on January 18, 2023, and February 2, 2023, respectively. On November 30, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Richard M. Simpson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) alleging a myriad of claims.! Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants seek to dismiss all of
I Plaintiff filed his Complaint pro se and did not disclose to the Court that he is a licensed attorney. However, according to the Washington State Bar Association, Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in the state of Washington. (Defs.” Mem. in Supp. at 1, ECF No. 13); Washington State Bar Association Legal Directory, Legal Profile for Richard M. Simpson, https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000 053162 (last visited March 7, 2023). Accordingly, Plaintiff “is not entitled to the liberal construction of pleadings ordinarily afforded to pro se litigants.” Gordon v. Gutierrez, No. 1:06cv861, 2006 WL 3760134, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2006). Other Circuit Courts of the United States Courts of Appeals have also drawn a distinction between pro se attorneys and other pro se parties. See Rashad v. Jenkins, No. 3:15cv655, 2016 WL 901279, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2016) (collecting federal circuit court cases).
Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp at 7.)* The parties have submitted memoranda supporting their respective positions. The Court will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions have been adequately presented to the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. See E.D. Va. Local Civ. Rule 7(J). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motions will be granted as to all claims. I. BACKGROUND As a threshold matter, Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any real factual allegations. As best as this Court can construe, Plaintiff's only real factual assertion is as follows, “City of Fredericksburg, at the direction of lawyer Yvonne Nageotte, arrested and incarcerated Plaintiff without trial, without bail, without due process, against his will, negligently, maliciously, fraudulently, and in an abuse of power, violating Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights.” (Compl. § 3.3.) The rest of Plaintiff's Complaint is comprised of
a laundry list of twenty-three (23) “Causes of Action” essentially stating that “the acts and omissions of Defendant(s)” constitute violations of either state or federal law. (See Compl. {4 3.1-3.23.) Although not provided in the Complaint, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's lawsuit stems from an ongoing Virginia state court custody and visitation dispute in which attorney Yvonne Nageotte and her law firm represent Plaintiff's wife. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. at 1.) Plaintiff's purported false arrest stems from an alleged
2 For simplicity, because Defendants assert essentially the same arguments as the basis for their Motions, the Court will only reference ECF No. 13 in citing Defendants’ position.
violation of a protective order that was entered against him as a part of the Virginia state court litigation. (/d. at 1-3.) Il. LEGAL STANDARD A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “does not resolve contests surrounding facts, the merits of
a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 379, 387 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)). “A complaint need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Tobey, 706 F.3d at 387). However, a “complaint must provide ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Turner v. Thomas, 930 F.3d 640, 644 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “Allegations have 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.’” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 386 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). However, a court “need not accept legal conclusions couched as facts or unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Turner, 930 F.3d at 644 (quoting Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012)). A court may consider a document not attached to the complaint, when “the document [is] integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document’s authenticity.” Jd. at 166. “[I]n the event of conflict between the bare allegations of the complaint and any exhibit attached, . . . the exhibit prevails.” Jd. (alteration in original) (quoting Fayetteville Invs. v. Com. Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991)).
A court may also “consider public records, documents central to plaintiff's claim, and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed.” Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App’x 395, 396 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). In considering a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true, and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions enjoy no such deference. /gbal, 556 U.S. at 678. III. DISCUSSION Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to meet both the Jgba/ and Twombly pleading standards, as well as the Rule 12(b)(6) standard because his Complaint only makes conclusory allegations and naked assertions. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. at 7.) Conversely, Plaintiff asserts that he has complied with the pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that any deficiencies can be “plainly construed to do justice.” (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n at 2, ECF No. 20 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)).) Plaintiff is correct in stating that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (PI.’s Resp.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division RICHARD M. SIMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-745—-HEH ) CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, et al.) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss & Granting Plaintiff Leave to Amend) This matter is before the Court on Defendants City of Fredericksburg; Yvonne J. Nageotte; and Nageotte, Nageotte, Nageotte, PC’s (collectively, the “Defendants” Motions to Dismiss (the “Motions,” ECF Nos. 8, 12), filed on January 18, 2023, and February 2, 2023, respectively. On November 30, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Richard M. Simpson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) alleging a myriad of claims.! Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants seek to dismiss all of
I Plaintiff filed his Complaint pro se and did not disclose to the Court that he is a licensed attorney. However, according to the Washington State Bar Association, Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in the state of Washington. (Defs.” Mem. in Supp. at 1, ECF No. 13); Washington State Bar Association Legal Directory, Legal Profile for Richard M. Simpson, https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000 053162 (last visited March 7, 2023). Accordingly, Plaintiff “is not entitled to the liberal construction of pleadings ordinarily afforded to pro se litigants.” Gordon v. Gutierrez, No. 1:06cv861, 2006 WL 3760134, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2006). Other Circuit Courts of the United States Courts of Appeals have also drawn a distinction between pro se attorneys and other pro se parties. See Rashad v. Jenkins, No. 3:15cv655, 2016 WL 901279, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2016) (collecting federal circuit court cases).
Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp at 7.)* The parties have submitted memoranda supporting their respective positions. The Court will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions have been adequately presented to the Court, and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. See E.D. Va. Local Civ. Rule 7(J). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motions will be granted as to all claims. I. BACKGROUND As a threshold matter, Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any real factual allegations. As best as this Court can construe, Plaintiff's only real factual assertion is as follows, “City of Fredericksburg, at the direction of lawyer Yvonne Nageotte, arrested and incarcerated Plaintiff without trial, without bail, without due process, against his will, negligently, maliciously, fraudulently, and in an abuse of power, violating Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights.” (Compl. § 3.3.) The rest of Plaintiff's Complaint is comprised of
a laundry list of twenty-three (23) “Causes of Action” essentially stating that “the acts and omissions of Defendant(s)” constitute violations of either state or federal law. (See Compl. {4 3.1-3.23.) Although not provided in the Complaint, Defendants allege that Plaintiff's lawsuit stems from an ongoing Virginia state court custody and visitation dispute in which attorney Yvonne Nageotte and her law firm represent Plaintiff's wife. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. at 1.) Plaintiff's purported false arrest stems from an alleged
2 For simplicity, because Defendants assert essentially the same arguments as the basis for their Motions, the Court will only reference ECF No. 13 in citing Defendants’ position.
violation of a protective order that was entered against him as a part of the Virginia state court litigation. (/d. at 1-3.) Il. LEGAL STANDARD A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “does not resolve contests surrounding facts, the merits of
a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Tobey v. Jones, 706 F.3d 379, 387 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992)). “A complaint need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Tobey, 706 F.3d at 387). However, a “complaint must provide ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Turner v. Thomas, 930 F.3d 640, 644 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “Allegations have 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.’” Tobey, 706 F.3d at 386 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). However, a court “need not accept legal conclusions couched as facts or unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Turner, 930 F.3d at 644 (quoting Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2012)). A court may consider a document not attached to the complaint, when “the document [is] integral to the complaint and there is no dispute about the document’s authenticity.” Jd. at 166. “[I]n the event of conflict between the bare allegations of the complaint and any exhibit attached, . . . the exhibit prevails.” Jd. (alteration in original) (quoting Fayetteville Invs. v. Com. Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991)).
A court may also “consider public records, documents central to plaintiff's claim, and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed.” Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App’x 395, 396 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). In considering a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true, and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions enjoy no such deference. /gbal, 556 U.S. at 678. III. DISCUSSION Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to meet both the Jgba/ and Twombly pleading standards, as well as the Rule 12(b)(6) standard because his Complaint only makes conclusory allegations and naked assertions. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. at 7.) Conversely, Plaintiff asserts that he has complied with the pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that any deficiencies can be “plainly construed to do justice.” (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n at 2, ECF No. 20 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)).) Plaintiff is correct in stating that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (PI.’s Resp. in Opp’n at 2.) He is also correct in stating that Rule 8(e) states that “[p]leadings must be construed so as to do justice.” (/d.) However, Plaintiff wholly neglects to acknowledge all other requirements governing pleadings in federal courts. Iqbal clearly outlines that “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Jgbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff's Complaint is simply a laundry list of formulaic recitations of the elements of twenty-three causes of action.’ Paragraph 3.3 is the only factual allegation contained in the Complaint. Again, it states “City of Fredericksburg, at the direction of Yvonne Nageotte, arrested and incarcerated Plaintiff without trial, without bail, without due process, against his will, negligently, maliciously, and in an abuse of power, violating Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights.” (Compl. | 3.3.) This allegation is the exact “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” that the United States Supreme Court held does not survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Jgbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Plaintiff simply provides no other factual content whatsoever to support any of his causes of action. As mentioned previously, as a licensed attorney in Washington State, Plaintiff is not entitled to the liberal construction ordinarily afforded to pro se litigants. Notwithstanding, even assessed under the normal liberal pro se standard and construed under Rule 8(e), Plaintiffs Complaint still does not state facts sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ Motions are based on “both blatantly false testimony and contradictory statements.” (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff argues the Court “may not dismiss [the] action.” Jd. However, Plaintiff points to no evidence whatsoever of false testimony or contradictory statements made by Defendants.
3 As an example, paragraph 3.4 of the Complaint states, “[t]he acts and omissions of the Defendant(s) constitute the tort of false imprisonment for which the Defendant(s) are liable.” No other factual enhancement was provided.
Balnkaseste roftil iloengcsao ln danudfac ltas cec uswaitntoihfa oc ntlsu a supplemenwtinaltotls i uoftnfiso ca evt ehC eom plafrionmdt im sissAasel iv.d enbcye d
DefendaEnxhibtis,tt' hs ewrasae v a idl proteoe drcetinrip vlaacgea Pilnasithne tw ia ffs, founindv iolaotfthi aootrn d anedar r,er sdta nedhe lwdi thboounbtdyt hsete a t magisjdtugre (a.rPtoetti evOcer daet1r3 - E,CFN o. 13-A5r;r Wearrsatn att1-s 2 E,C F No.s1 3-136-,I7 n;c iRedpeonartt1-t 7E ,CF N o1.3 -B8a.s)oe ntd sh e iivdenect,h ere wasa b asfoiras n alyl eargrebed yst hteC iotyfF e rdicekrsbaun rdtg fah,ce oefth e
incirdeepnpotlr atsistn althtyta Pe lsa iswn itfein,foY ftvo nnNaeg eostotutehg,ehar tre st warroanhne t orsw n(I.n ctiR deepnao3tr5, t. T)he erforet,h einrsoe fa cutabals is allegaet adl tols u ppPolrati nctliafaifgimnsassD te nfedtasn. AccordDienfegnldsyaM',no tti(oEnCNsoF s 8.,1 ) 2w iblegl r anantde d,
PltaififCnsom plawiilnblted s imissweidthu opter judHiocwee.vt ehCreou, rt b leieves Plaidenestrivaffne ost ahtetret amomp ptl thiefafy c atalun dl egbsaailus p ownhic hh is clareis.mtT hserefotrhCeeo, uw ritgrl aln Ptl ailenattvifioeffe l a na medendcm oplaint wit thhiirty(n 03 )daoyftsh eeny tofrth ea ccompOarnd yPeilrna.gi hnotwiefivf,se r, warntehdt faa iltifionl gaet imaemleyn cdmoepdl athitacn motp ielswi tthh Feee dral
RuloefCs i vPirlo ceanddthu eprle ea dsiatnndga grodvse rnfedienrcgao lum ratrysse ,u lt inth edi smioshfs i aasclt wiiho tpnr ejuThdeCi ocuewr.ita ls lloe nteanrytm aoitni ons for attornefeye sss'h oaunlfiydl aemde neddc moplabiedn ete mfreidv olous. Ana pproOprrdwieiaralt clec omtphMaine 11!sy �r � nion. DatM eo.n; : \� 2 61.3 -�_-_1-- ..a..;;l / s__ _�__;.;.._ r-- 11 _ RichmVoinrdg,i nia HenEry.H udson SeniorS tUaDntiieststJe rudid cgte