Middlebrooks v. City of Macon-Bibb Cnty.

1

LILLIE M. MIDDLEBROOKS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MACON-BIBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-00083-TES

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division

February 12, 2024

OMNIBUS ORDER

TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Lillie M. Middlebrooks hopes to hold ten local-government individuals and entities liable on the allegation that they “deprived” her of her house land, and property without due process of law by recording an allegedly statutorily deficient quitclaim deed. Following discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment against Plaintiff, and she moved for summary judgment against the seven Defendants whom she sues in their individual capacity. When taking those motions under advisement in its normal course of business, the Court noticed Plaintiff's use of proper legal citations and headings throughout her briefs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they were, in all candor, fairly well-written.

The benchmark of a well-written brief is often an elusive goal for many practiced attorneys boasting several years of honed legal-writing skills. Considering that as well as Plaintiff's pro se status and the fact that she is not a licensed attorney, the Court thought it necessary to simply ask whether one assisted her with her briefs. Well, even though the Court unquestionably has a right to know whether Plaintiff received help from a licensed attorney or even a law school student-that was apparently a bridge too far. What began as a simple inquiry about ghostwriting has metastasized into a back-and-forth with the Court that has needlessly consumed far too much of its already limited resources.

Since the Court's inquiry, Plaintiff has taken herculean efforts to transform normal, run-of-the-mill litigation into a platform for interjecting unsubstantiated rhetoric against the Court just so her case can be reassigned to another judge. Rather than just answer the Court's question Plaintiff chose instead to provide two roundabout responses rife with baseless allegations that this Court-in 2024-is shrouded in not only Jim Crow ideology, but has the mentality of the Ku Klux Klan. Eye-popping and pearl-clutching accusations, to be sure. As shown below, her mountain of sensational allegations against the Court immediately buckles under the slightest objective analysis. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has made her remarks, and rest assured, her disqualification concerns as well as the merits of her claims will be addressed- thoroughly.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

You wouldn't know it yet, but in all, there are 15 motions pending in this case.

Most of them are, of course, aimed at the merits of Plaintiff's claims and the remainder deal with her demands for judicial disqualification. Obviously, the issues surrounding disqualification must be dealt with first, but as with any lawsuit, what it's about is the best place to start.

The first three counts of Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] assert Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process claims. Count 1 asserts a due process claim against the Macon-Bibb County Superior Court Clerk, Erica L. Woodford, and Tamika Burnett, who Plaintiff alleges is the head of the Real Estate Department for Macon-Bibb County. [Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7-8 97-103]. Count 2 asserts a due process claim against the Macon-Bibb County Board of Tax Assessors Office and three of its employees-Andrea Crutchfield, Jody Claborn, and Jennifer Mitchell-and Count 3 asserts a due process claim against not only the employees of the Macon-Bibb County Tax Commissioner's Office but against the Tax Commissioner, Samuel Wade McCord, and Cheryl Lee, who, according to Plaintiff serves a supervisor in the Tax Commissioner's Office. [Id. at ¶¶ 912, 15-16, 104-17]. Next, Counts 4 and 5, respectively, assert claims for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Macon-Bibb County based on allegedly unconstitutional policies in effect at the time Plaintiff's claims arose and its alleged failure to train its employees. [Id. at ¶¶ 118-42]. And finally, Count 6 asserts state-law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against the Tax Commissioner's Office and Cheryl Lee. [Id. at ¶¶ 143-53]. Rapid rundowns of claims presented in a complaint-like that one-can often be daunting, confusing, and difficult to digest. Thankfully, though, the allegations and facts from which those claims arise are relatively straightforward.

Plaintiff's mother, Shirley Hill Middlebrooks, purchased property at 579 Villa Esta Circle, Macon, Georgia, in 1980. [Id. at ¶ 18]; [Doc. 19-2, pp. 1-2 ¶¶ 1-3]. Upon her mother's death on July 7, 2015, Plaintiff alleges that she and her sister, Deidre C. Middlebrooks-Perlitz, were the rightful intestate heirs to the property and should have inherited it by operation of law. [Doc. 1, ¶¶ 18-23]; [Doc. 19-2, pp. 3-5 ¶¶ 8-14].

During a visit to the Tax Commissioner's Office on June 18, 2021, to discuss a tax foreclosure filed against her for “seriously delinquent” property taxes concerning her mother's property, Plaintiff alleges that she “discovered” some surprising news. [Doc. 1, ¶ 34]; [Doc. 34-18, L. Middlebrooks Decl., ¶ 5]; [Doc. 34-18, p. 8]. According to Plaintiff, “Sherlice Morgan of 557 Villa Esta Circle” (who, as you'll notice from the Court's summary of Plaintiff's claims, is not a named defendant in this lawsuit) executed a quitclaim deed on January 7, 2021, for Plaintiff's mother to sell her property to her for $1.00. [Doc. 1, ¶ 34]; [Doc. 19-1, ¶ 22]; [Doc. 25-2, p. 3 ¶ 5]. This quitclaim deed was-in Plaintiff's opinion-fraudulent and noncompliant with Georgia law on several fronts and shouldn't have been recorded. [Doc. 1, ¶ 46]; [Doc. 19-2, pp. 6-8 ¶¶ 22-30]; [Doc. 41, p. 2]. Sure enough, though, if you were to look in Deed Book 10825 in the Bibb County Superior Court Clerk's Office, you'll find a quitclaim deed describing a purported conveyance of “579 Villa Esta Circle” from Plaintiff's mother to Ms. Morgan. [Doc. 19-16, p. 2]; [Doc. 25-2, p. 3 ¶ 6].

Apparently, Defendant Lee from the Tax Commissioner's Office “assured” Plaintiff that if she paid the outstanding property taxes, the Tax Commissioner's Office would keep the property tax records for 579 Vista Esta Circle in her mother's name. [Doc. 1, ¶ 40]. “Needless to say,” Plaintiff alleges that she paid her mother's outstanding property taxes in the amount of $6,363.32 during her visit to the Tax Commissioner's Office on June 18, 2021. [Id. at ¶ 41]. Then, after allegedly making that payment, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Lee “instructed” her to pop over to the Clerk's Office in the county courthouse and ask them to “cancel and expunge” Ms. Morgan's quitclaim deed. [Id. at ¶ 42]. When Plaintiff asked a supervisor from the Clerk's Office how this seemingly fraudulent quitclaim deed could even be recorded, the supervisor allegedly informed Plaintiff that quitclaim deeds “are not screened” for compliance with Georgia law prior to recording “as long as” the filing fee is paid. [Id. at ¶¶ 43, 47-48]. What's interesting about this quitclaim deed, though, if you haven't picked up on it already, is that it's dated January 7, 2021, and contains Plaintiff's mother's “signature” as the grantor even though she passed away in 2015. [Doc. 19-16, p. 3]; [Doc. 1, ¶ 18]. In addition to what Plaintiff alleges is obviously a “forged” grantor's signature, the quitclaim deed contains Ms. Morgan's signature as the grantee, the signature of a single witness, and jurat language just above the signature and seal of a notary public. [Doc. 1, ¶ 45]; [Doc. 19-16, p. 3]; [Doc. 25-2, p. 3 ¶¶ 5-6]; [Doc. 41, p. 2].

Once the Clerk's Office refused to cancel and expunge the quitclaim deed, Plaintiff claims that Defendants Woodford and Burnett forwarded it to the Tax Assessors' Office and to the Tax Commissioner's Office where Defendants Crutchfield, Claborn, and Mitchell then put 579 Villa Esta Circle in Ms. Morgan's name despite Defendant Lee's alleged assurance that everything would be kept in Plaintiff's mother's name. [Doc. 1, ¶¶ 40, 48, 54-56]. To lend support to her allegation that 579 Villa Esta Circle is in Ms. Morgan's name, Plaintiff, contemporaneously with her Complaint, submitted a copy of an annual tax assessment generated by the Tax Assessors' Office on May 13, 2022. [Doc. 1-3, p. 2]. This annual tax assessment indicates that it was mailed to Ms. Morgan at 557 Villa Esta Circle, and it, in fact, lists 579 Villa Esta Circle as the subject property address. [Id. at pp. 2-3]. What's more, the ensuing property tax bill for 579 Villa Esta Circle, contrary to what Defendant Lee allegedly assured Plaintiff, clearly denotes Ms. Morgan as the taxpayer-not Shirley Hill Middlebrooks or either of her two daughters. [Doc. 1-4, p. 2]. After unsuccessful efforts to have the Tax Assessors' Office delete Ms. Morgan's name from property records for 579 Villa Esta Circle or to have the Clerk's Office cancel or expunge Ms. Morgan's quitclaim deed, Plaintiff filed suit in an effort to regain title to her late mother's house. [Doc. 1, ¶¶ 58, 61-63, 66-67, 70]; see also [Doc. 1, p. 61 ¶ O].

DISCUSSION

Again a total of 15 motions await ruling, and as mentioned above the Court starts with Plaintiff's arguments regarding disqualification.^[1]Since, as discussed below, disqualification is not required in this case, now is just as good a time as any to note that each of the Court's substantive rulings on the merits of Plaintiff's claims are alternative rulings because it dismisses this action as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to her willful refusal to comply with court orders. After first carefully considering Plaintiff's disqualification arguments and laying out its reasons for dismissal under Rule...