Gordon v. Greene

1

PAULA A. GORDON, individually and on behalf of her minor grandchild, REP v. HUNTER V. GREENE, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 21-67-JWD-EWD

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

March 29, 2023

RULING AND ORDER

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is a “Motion for Third Extension of Time to File First Amended Complaint” (the “Fourth Motion for Extension” or “Motion”),^[1]filed by Paula Gordon (“Plaintiff”). Through the Motion Plaintiff seeks what would actually be a fourth extension of time to file an amended complaint. The Motion was filed after Plaintiff's last extension of time expired, and Plaintiff has not established excusable neglect (or good cause) under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b)(1) for another extension, so the request will be denied. Additionally, even if Plaintiff's request were considered a motion for leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15, because Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”),^[2]which was untimely filed, still fails to state a claim as to any Defendants, amendment would be denied.

I. Background

A. General Factual Background

Plaintiff filed this suit against the Original Defendants^[3]on January 25, 2021, opening a second front to the legal dispute involving the paternity and custody of Plaintiff's granddaughter, REP. This Court, and others, have written before about the facts giving rise to this dispute,^[4] which largely relate to proceedings in the Family Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge (“Family Court”) concerning the paternity and custody of REP, among other things (collectively, the “Family Court Proceedings”).^[5]The facts set forth in the Court's prior Reports and Recommendations, Rulings, and Opinions are incorporated by reference and expounded on here only where necessary.^[6] In short, Plaintiff alleges that REP's father, Parker;^[7]Parker's attorney, Fitzgerald; Judge Greene, the state court judge who primarily presided over the Family Court Proceedings; and others affiliated with those proceedings violated her civil rights and/or conspired to violate her civil rights (the “Conspiracy”). Plaintiff claims the Original Defendants' actions ultimately resulted in her imprisonment for sixty (60) days for civil contempt for violating an Order issued by Judge Greene in the Family Court Proceedings.^[8]This Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Judge Greene, Judge Johnson, Allain, and Zeigler, with prejudice, on May 10, 2021.^[9] Plaintiff's federal claims against the remaining Original Defendants-Parker and Fitzgerald- were dismissed on March 29, 2022 but Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to establish her claims against Parker and/or Fitzgerald, if possible.^[10]

Between the dismissal of Plaintiff's original Complaint and the date of this Ruling, the Conspiracy has grown beyond Parker, Fitzgerald, Judge Greene, and the Family Court Proceedings. According to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Parker, Fitzgerald, and Judge Greene are participants in a Parish-wide, if not State-wide, conspiracy involving judges in the state trial courts;^[11]Judge Walter Lanier (“Judge Lanier”), a judge on the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal; Doug Welborn (“Welborn”), the Clerk of Court for East Baton Rouge Parish; Marketa Walters (“Walters”), the former Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”), and Jeff Landry (“AG Landry”), the Louisiana Attorney General (Judge Lanier, Welborn, Walters, and AG Landry are collectively the “New Defendants”). Plaintiff claims the New Defendants work in concert to “procure judgments” of “filiation” to and/or “custody” in favor of “men seeking.. .girls,” which, in turn, creates a “highway [used by these] human traffickers to exploit women, children, the courts, and the state by claiming paternity for children they are not related to; gain[ing] possession of those children and control of their mothers; and keep[ing] the courts in business with protective parents (and grandparents) fighting to get those women and children back into their rightful families.” Deciphering Plaintiff's allegations as best the Court can, the Conspiracy works as follows: Men like Parker hire “favored attorneys” to file suits seeking “filiation” to and/or “custody” over unrelated “girls.” Once filed, these attorneys work in conjunction with Welborn to “manipulate” the random allotment of cases such that these suits go to judges like Judge Greene, a “known sympathizer,” who then issue “judgments which will trigger an appeal [to other complicit judges in other courts] (to generate revenue for their scheme) yet evade review (to delay proceedings and maximize the [favored attorney's] fees and the need for proceedings to be transcribed by [complicit court reporters like Allain]),” all while the other court personnel, the Secretary of DCFS, and the Louisiana Attorney General knowingly turn a blind eye.^[12]

B. Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Dismissal of Same

Against the backdrop of the Family Court Proceedings, Plaintiff asserted the following claims against the Original Defendants in her original Complaint: (1) claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her rights under the First, Six, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3) for a conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff's civil rights by “obstructing justice, intimidating a party witness,” and “depriving persons of rights or privileges”; (3) an “action for neglect to prevent” under 42 U.S.C. § 1986; and (4) a criminal claim for conspiracy against rights under 28 U.S.C. § 241. Plaintiff also asserted a host of state law claims, including claims under La. Civ. Code arts. 2315, 2315.6, 2316, and La. R.S. § 14:132.^[13]

Judge Greene and Judge Johnson, Allain, and Zeigler responded to the original Complaint by filing Motions to Dismiss.^[14] Because Plaintiff did not oppose these motions within the delays provided by the Local Civil Rules, the motions were deemed unopposed. Because the motions had merit, a Report and Recommendation was issued on April 16, 2021 (the “April 16 R&R”), recommending that the Motions to Dismiss be granted dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Judge Greene, Judge Johnson, Allain, and Ziegler with prejudice.^[15]Specifically, the April 16 R&R explained that, because Plaintiff's claims arose out of a custody determination, and related state court contempt proceedings, with which results Plaintiff disagreed, the exercise of jurisdiction over these claims should probably be declined pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine and/or the domestic relations exception. Even if the Court exercised subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff's claims against Judges Greene and Johnson were barred by absolute judicial immunity as those claims rested solely on acts taken (and not taken) by them during judicial proceedings. Plaintiff's claims against Allain were also barred by judicial immunity as that doctrine extends to clerks for acts taken as required by court order or at the judge's direction, and Plaintiff had no standing to assert a claim against Zeigler related to her role in judicial proceedings (not involving Plaintiff) as a child support enforcement lawyer. Over Plaintiff's objection,^[16]the April 16 R&R was adopted as the opinion of the Court, and Plaintiff's claims against Judges Greene and Johnson, Allain, and Zeigler were dismissed with prejudice.^[17]

On April 19, 2021, Parker moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim and, even if she did, those claims were prescribed.^[18]Further, Parker argued that all claims purportedly brought on behalf of REP should be dismissed because Plaintiff lacked capacity to file suit on behalf of REP. Plaintiff opposed Parker's Motion to Dismiss.^[19]In summary, Plaintiff argued that she had stated a claim against Parker and Fitzgerald because the allegations in the original Complaint sufficiently alleged that they “acted under color of law and conspired with four [now dismissed] state actor[s]”-Judge Greene, Judge Johnson, Allain, and Zeigler-to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights by “jailing Plaintiff for nothing more than seeking protection for her grandchild” and “obtaining a judicial determination that Parker is REP's father without any proof or evidence.”^[20]

As of May 12, 2021, Fitzgerald had not responded to Plaintiff's Original Complaint, despite being served, so Plaintiff moved for a Clerk's Entry of Default,^[21]which was entered against Fitzgerald the following day.^[22]

On June 20, 2021, Fitzgerald filed a Motion to Deny Entry of Judgment and Motion for Leave of Court to File Responsive Pleadings.^[23]Fitzgerald's counsel explained that he was “not aware that [Fitzgerald] had executed and returned to [Plaintiff] a waiver of service form,” so he was “wait[ing] for proper service before embarking on his defense of [Fitzgerald].” Fitzgerald's counsel also explained that he is prepared to “contest the claim against his client on the basis of its utter lack of merit”-namely that Fitzgerald is not a “State Actor capable of depriving [Plaintiff] of her Constitutional rights” and, as an attorney who has been adverse to Plaintiff “on every occasion that he was hired to represent someone that she had sued in the State system,” he “never owed to [Plaintiff] a duty of any kind” that could give rise to liability. Plaintiff opposed Fitzgerald's motion, complaining that Fitzgerald's counsel “filed motions claiming the blame for his client's own fault, willfulness, and bad faith refusal to accept responsibility for [] Fitzgerald's fraud upon the court; as well as his tortious...