Lloyd v. Pokorny

SUSAN LLOYD, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS POKORNY, et. al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-2928

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

August 3, 2020

JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants Portage County, Ohio ("Portage County"), Judge Thomas Pokorny ("Judge Pokorny"), Portage County Assistant Prosecutor Chris Meduri ("Prosecutor Meduri"), Portage County Clerk of Courts Jill Fankhauser¹ ("Clerk of Courts Fankhauser"), Portage County Courthouse ("Portage Courthouse"), and Portage County Court Reporter Toni DiNardo² ("Court Reporter DiNardo") (collectively the "Portage Defendants") have filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff Susan Lloyd ("Plaintiff") has responded (ECF No. 33) and the Portage Defendants have replied (ECF No. 34). For the reasons stated herein, the Portage Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.

I.

Plaintiff filed this action on September 23, 2019 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On June 5, 2020, the case was transferred to this Court. (See ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff sued the following Defendants: Judge Pokorny, Chief Justice MaureenO'Connor, the Supreme Court of Ohio, Scott Drexel, Amy Stone, the Ohio Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, Jason Whitacre, Scott Flynn, Flynn, Keith, and Flynn, LLC, Lindsay Molnar, David Perduk, Perduk and Associates Co., LLC, Prosecutor Meduri, the State of Ohio, Portage County, Portage Courthouse, Clerk of Courts Fankhauser, Tory Reeves, Court Reporter DiNardo, Joshua Thornsbery, and Michael Szabo (collectively "Defendants"). (See Compl. ¶¶ 4-25.) Plaintiff sued the individual defendants in their personal and official capacities. Plaintiff's Complaint was 129 pages. (See id.) On December 11, 2019, in response to extensive Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 briefing by several Defendants, Plaintiff amended her Complaint. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 23.) The Amended Complaint is 155 pages. (See id.)

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes 44 causes of action all related to a civil case filed in Portage County, Ohio, Lloyd v. Thornsbery, et al., No. 2016CV00230 (the "Thornsbery case.") (See id.) In the Thornsbery case Plaintiff sued a former neighbor and others who allegedly harassed her. (Id. ¶ 27.) The defendants ultimately prevailed, and Plaintiff's appeal is pending in the Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals.³

The allegations in the Amended Complaint include violations of the United States Constitution, violations of Ohio and federal criminal statutes, common law claims of abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and bribery, violations of the appellate "abuse of discretion" standard of review, violations of Ohio Sunshine laws, violations of various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, violations of various Ohio local rules of civil procedure, violations of Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, violations of the Ohio Rules of Superintendence of Ohio Courts, violationsof the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and Federal Trade Commission Debt Collection Practices, and unlawful discrimination based on sex and disability. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Specifically, with regards to the Portage Defendants, Plaintiff alleges the following:

• Judge Pokorny: Plaintiff alleges the Supreme Court of Ohio appointed Judge Pokorny to preside over the Thornsbery case. (Id. ¶ 5, 27, 31.) Plaintiff makes a series of allegations regarding Judge Pokorny's allegedly improper actions taken in this role. (Id. ¶ 2, 31-57, 245-46, 265-66, 291, 296, 314-16, 357-58, 440-43, 448-49, 451, 454, 457-58, 466-69, 473-77, 503-06, 516, 524, 538, 588, 614, 636, 640.) These actions include violating federal and local rules of procedure, violating federal and state statutes, violating Plaintiff's civil rights and participating in a conspiracy against Plaintiff. (See id.)

• Portage Courthouse: Plaintiff includes her allegations against Judge Pokorny as against the Portage Courthouse and also alleges the Portage Courthouse was prejudicial towards her. (See id. ¶ 2, 31-57, 143, 245-46, 265-66, 291, 296, 314-16, 357-58, 440-43, 448-49, 451, 454, 457-58, 466-69, 473-77, 503-06, 516, 524, 538, 588, 614, 636, 640.)

• Clerk of Courts Fankhauser: Plaintiff alleges Clerk of Courts Fankhauser violated the Ohio Sunshine laws by refusing to provide her with transcripts and audio recordings of the Thornsbery case. (Id. ¶ 20-21, 144-46.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Clerk of Courts Fankhauser took other improper actions in her role as the Clerk of Courts including violating Plaintiff's civil rights and participating in a conspiracy against Plaintiff. (See id.)

• Court Reporter DiNardo: Court Reporter DiNardo was the court reporter in the Thornsbery case. Plaintiff alleges Court Reporter DiNardo charged too high a rate for a transcript, refused to release a partial transcript of the proceedings, violated Plaintiff's civil rights and participated in a conspiracy against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 76, 150-51.)

• Prosecutor Meduri: Plaintiff alleges that Prosecutor Meduri violated the Ohio Sunshine laws when he failed to produce audio recordings from proceedings, violated the civil rights of non-party Brian Ames by interrupting him or objecting to his comments in a public meeting, and improperly declined to prosecute Joshua Thornsbery and Michael Szabo for the criminal activity they engaged in. (Id. ¶ 134-37, 151, 257-58, 267, 338.)

• Portage County, Ohio: Plaintiff alleges that whenever she tries to post on an official Portage County website, Portage County either blocks or deletes her posts which violates her civil rights. (Id. ¶ 139.) Plaintiff also alleges Portage County does not respond to her complaints about drug use in Portage County. (Id. ¶¶ 137, 140-41.)

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asks for a series of relief which can be divided into three categories. First, Plaintiff asks for relief directly relating to the Thornsbery case and other state court actions including: providing Plaintiff with a new trial and a new judge, amending JudgePokorny's orders, dismissing the sanctions against Plaintiff ordered in the Thornsbery case, dismissal of the determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigator made in the Thornsbery case, Judge Pokorny's recusal from the Thornsbery case and "every other case in Ohio," reevaluation of Plaintiff's previously dismissed state court complaints, and transfer of the Thornsbery case out of Portage County, Ohio. (See id. ¶¶ 691-97.) Next, Plaintiff asks for the following injunctive relief: reevaluation of the criminal activity Plaintiff previously complained about, a public apology, restoration of Plaintiff's ability to post on Portage County and Ohio websites and social media, training for Ohio officials on the use of service dogs, an order prohibiting Defendants from violating other individuals' civil rights, disbarment of Defendants Jason Whitcare, Scott Flynn, Lindsay Molnar, David Perduk, Amy Stone, Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Judge Pokorny, and Troy Reeves, removal of Court Reporter DiNardo's court reporter license, and prosecution of Michael Szabo and Joshua Thornsbery for crimes including drug use and violence. (See id. ¶¶ 698-99, 701-03, 706-08.) Finally, Plaintiff asks for monetary relief including: $100,000 in actual and punitive damages, a fine imposed for violation of Plaintiff's civil rights, expenses for Plaintiff's relocation out of Portage County, and compensation from Mr. Szabo and Mr. Thornsbery for Plaintiff's financial loss as a result of their criminal behavior. (See id. ¶¶ 700, 704-05, 708.)

The Portage Defendants move to dismiss the claims against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.⁴ (Defs.' Mot. Dismiss at 10-21, ECF No. 28.)

II.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Without subject matter jurisdiction, a federal court lacks authority to hear a case. Thornton v. Sw. Detroit Hosp., 895 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir. 1990). "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court determinations." Caddell v. Campbell, No. 1:19-cv-91, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24315, at *11 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2020); see also Hall v. Callahan, 727 F.3d 450, 453 (6th Cir. 2013) ("Federal district courts do not stand as appellate courts for decisions of state courts."). Federal courts must give full faith and credit to final judgments from state courts and lack jurisdiction to review those decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to any case in which a plaintiff attempts to bring an impermissible attack on a state court judgment. Caddell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24315 at *12.

Additionally, a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution grants sovereign immunity to the states against suits in federal court.⁵ Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54-59 (1996). "Under the Eleventh Amendment, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear suits by private citizens against a state unless the State explicitly consents to the suit or unless Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power, indisputably consents its intent to abrogate state immunity." Bedford v. Kasich, No. 2:11-cv-351, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51903, at *19 (S.D. Ohio May 4, 2011) (citing Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304 (1990)). Additionally, "[a]n entity acting as an arm of the state enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal suit to the same extent as the state itself."Yancey v. Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 5:03-cv-122, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 330, at *10 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 2, 2004) (citing Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 47-51 (1994)). Thus, Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state officials sued in their official capacity.⁶ McCormick v. Miami Univ....