Skaggs v. Howell

1

JEREMY SHANE SKAGGS PLAINTIFF v. WHITNEY HOWELL AND BENJAMIN HOWELL DEFENDANTS

No. 4:22-cv-01029-LPR

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division

July 2, 2024

ORDER

LEE P RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Order DENIES Jeremy Shane Skaggs's Motion to Remand.^[1] As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Mr. Skaggs's Motion violates Local Rule 7.2(a). It is not accompanied by a brief. For that reason, the Motion is denied to the extent it raises any non-jurisdictional issues. Thankfully for Mr. Skaggs, the main issue raised by the Motion is a jurisdictional one. And because of the important Article III interests in limiting federal courts to deciding only cases and controversies, the Court has an obligation to examine the jurisdictional issue irrespective of whether that issue was properly raised.^[2] So on we go.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

A. The Complaint

In his Complaint, Mr. Skaggs alleges that he and the Defendants (Whitney and Benjamin Howell^[3]) had a contract whereby (1) Mr. Skaggs would make improvements to the Howell home, (2) the Howells would sell their home, and (3) Mr. Skaggs would receive any money in excess of $40,000 that came from the sale of the home.^[4] According to Mr. Skaggs, he advanced approximately $35,000 for labor and material costs.^[5] Mr. Skaggs alleges that the Howells sold the home intending to cut Mr. Skaggs out of the deal-i.e., not pay him anything.^[6] And Mr. Skaggs alleges that part of the scheme to breach the contract included the Howells trumping up allegations that Mr. Skaggs raped Mrs. Howell.^[7] Implying that the contractual agreement was reached sometime in 2015, Mr. Skaggs alleges that he began work on the house in September of 2015 and stopped work on the house in May of 2018.^[8]

Both Mr. Skaggs and Mr. Howell are military men.^[9] The Complaint alleges that the “Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's Commanding Officer, who then forwarded the . . . Defendants' false Complaint to the police department.”^[10] Mrs. Howell then “initiated charges against the Plaintiff” as part of the purported scheme to get out of paying Mr. Skaggs his due under the aforementioned contract.^[11] A police investigation ensued, but the Prosecuting Attorney ultimately declined to prosecute the case.^[12]

Asserting lost reputation and a forced job-transfer as injuries, Mr. Skaggs alleges that the “Defendants, acting in concert, . . . defamed the Plaintiff, committed an abuse of process, and placed Plaintiff in a false light.”^[13] The Complaint more specifically asserts that the “Defendants knew” that “Plaintiff did not rape” Mrs. Howell, but “they [nevertheless] falsely contacted Plaintiff's commanding officer and accused Plaintiff of rape” in an attempt “to discourage the Plaintiff from pursuing [the Defendants] for the money [they] owed the Plaintiff.”^[14]

A fair reading of this Complaint suggests that Mr. Skaggs is attempting to bring the following claims: (1) breach-of-contract claims against both Mr. and Mrs. Howell for failure to pay Mr. Skaggs his portion of the sale proceeds;^[15] (2) unjust-enrichment claims against both Mr. and Mrs. Howell for accepting the benefit of Mr. Skaggs's labor and materials without paying for it;^[16] (3) claims for a labor and materials lien against both Mr. and Mrs. Howell for the same conduct described in category 2 above;^[17] (4) defamation claims against both Mr. and Mrs. Howell for reporting the alleged rape to Mr. Howell's superior officer and for initiating charges concerning the alleged rape with the police;^[18] (5) abuse-of-process claims against both Mr. and Mrs. Howell for the same conduct described in category 4 above;^[19] and (6) false-light-invasion-of-privacy claims against both Mr. and Mrs. Howell for the same conduct described in category 4 above.^[20]

There is, however, a catch. Mr. Skaggs has now expressly disclaimed-clearly and repeatedly-any defamation claim against Mr. Howell for Mr. Howell's report of the alleged rape to Mr. Howell's commanding officer.^[21] But Mr. Skaggs believes his Complaint is capacious enough to include a defamation claim against Mr. Howell for speaking to the police (as opposed to his commanding officer) if the evidence ends up suggesting that Mr. Howell spoke to the police about the alleged rape.^[22] And Mr. Skaggs has not disclaimed the abuse-of-process or false-light-invasion-of-privacy claims against Mr. Howell for the report to Mr. Howell's commanding officer.^[23]

B. Mr. Howell's Affirmative Defense

This case began in state court. It was removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442a.^[24] That statute provides as follows:

A civil or criminal prosecution in a court of a State of the United States against a member of the armed forces of the United States on account of an act done under color of his office or status, or in respect to which he claims any right, title, or authority under a law of the United States respecting the armed forces thereof, or under the law of war, may at any time before trial or final hearing be removed for trial into the district court of the United States ....^[25]

Absent this statute, there would not be federal jurisdiction in this case. Mr. Skaggs's claims sound solely in state law, and there is no suggestion that the parties are diverse. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, this would typically end the matter and require the Court to remand the case back to the state court.^[26] But § 1442a operates as an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule.^[27]

In order to proceed with the case here in federal court, Mr. Howell must meet § 1442a's requirements. When addressing a jurisdictional issue like this one, the Court need not limit itself to the allegations in the Complaint.^[28] Rather, the Court may rely on evidence (such as declarations, affidavits, or testimony) in making its jurisdictional determination.^[29] Based on the record evidence presented by the parties, the Court understands a little more about the events underlying this lawsuit than it had gleaned from the Complaint alone.

The alleged rape took place sometime in or before December 2016-at Mrs. Howell's birthday party.^[30] Essentially, the Howells' version of events is that Mrs. Howell was incredibly drunk (too drunk to consent, though not unconscious) and Mr. Skaggs knowingly took advantage of that by having sex with her.^[31] On the other hand, Mr. Skaggs's version of events appears to be that Mrs. Howell was not too drunk to consent and initiated the sexual contact.^[32] It is not clear from the record when Mr. Howell found out about this incident. What is clear is that Mr. Howell, Mrs. Howell, and Mr. Skaggs did not share this incident with the military or the police (or otherwise discuss it publicly) for a full year.^[33]

This changed in December of 2017. At that time, Mr. Howell “was a Master Sergeant in the Arkansas Air National Guard” and “served as the Communications Maintenance Superintendent.”^[34] In addition, as a so-called “dual-status technician,” he was a federal civilian employee of the United States Air Force.^[35] And he was also a member of the Air National Guard of the United States, which made Mr. Howell “a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corp” of the Air Force.^[36] Like Mr. Howell, Mr. Skaggs “was also in the Arkansas Air National Guard[;]” he “served as a Technical Sergeant in the Communications Quality Assurance office ”^[37] On December 27, 2017, Mr. Howell was informed by his immediate commander (who also happened to be Mr. Skaggs's immediate commander) that Mr. Skaggs “was being moved to Communications maintenance.”^[38] Because Mr. Howell was the appointed Communications Maintenance Superintendent, this move would make Mr. Howell Mr. Skaggs's immediate supervisor, placing Mr. Skaggs in Mr. Howell's chain of command.^[39]

In early January of 2018, Mr. Howell reported the alleged 2016 rape of Mrs. Howell to the on-premises Sexual Assault Response Coordinator.^[40] He then told his immediate commander of the report and, at the request of his immediate commander, shared details regarding the alleged rape.^[41] And (at least based on the allegations in the Complaint) the commander “then forwarded the” rape report “to the police department.”^[42] From there, it is unclear whether the police contacted the Howells or the Howells took it upon themselves to follow up with the police. But it appears that at least Mrs. Howell spoke with the police and “initiated charges.”^[43]

Mr. Howell says that, once he became Mr. Skaggs's supervisor, Air Force rules required Mr. Howell to report what he reasonably believed (and still believes) to have been the rape (or sexual assault) of Mrs. Howell to the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator and to his immediate commander.^[44] Specifically, Mr. Howell asserts that he was obligated to report the rape because of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90-6001.^[45]

What is AFI 90-6001 and from where did it come? Pursuant to its statutory obligations,^[46]the Department of Defense issued Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02.^[47] The DoDI commanded that “[t]he Secretaries of the Military Departments shall: Establish [Sexual Assault Prevention and Response] policy and procedures ....”^[48] In response, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered that AFI 90-6001 be issued.^[49] As that AFI notes, “compliance with [the] publication is mandatory.”^[50] This mandatory compliance with AFI 90-6001 applies to “all levels of command and all AF organizations including the Active Duty (Reg[ular Air Force]), [Air Force] government civilian employees, United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), and Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve Components (ARC) while in Federal Service.”^[51] Further, there exists serious administrative disciplinary actions for...