The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Frost
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Laura MacBan ("MacBan"). (Doc. # 7). Defendants Daryl Miller ("Daryl") and Tommie Miller ("Tommie") joined in MacBan's motion to dismiss. (Doc. # # 11, 13). Pro se Plaintiff Mary Miller Hall ("Hall") filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. # 15), to which MacBan replied. (Doc. #16). Hall then filed a sur-reply. (Doc. # 17). The Court STRIKES Hall's sur-reply (Doc. # 17) for failure to comport with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, and GRANTS MacBan's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 7).
Cognizant of Hall's pro se status, and addressing the case within a motion to dismiss, the Court shall treat the allegations contained within Hall's Complaint as true. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (addressing treatment of pro se pleadings and filings by courts).
Hall is an Ohio resident who lives with her son, Charles Miller ("Charles").*fn1 (Doc. # 1). MacBan resides and practices law in Arizona. (Doc. # 7 Ex. 10). Daryl and Tommie, former husband and wife, reside in Arizona. (Doc. # 1). Daryl is Hall's son; Tommie is Hall's former daughter-in-law. (Doc. # 1; Doc. # 15 at 3).
Hall instigated at least three previous lawsuits in Arizona state court that are of import in the case sub judice. The first involved allegations by Hall that Daryl and Tommie had improperly taken control of an investment account Hall had created in her name and Daryl's name. (Doc. # 7 Ex. 3, 4).*fn2 After a bench trial, Defendant Judge John F. Kelly ("Judge Kelly") entered a verdict in favor of Daryl and Tommie. (Doc. # 7 Ex. 4).
In the second suit, Hall alleged that St. Joseph's Hospital engaged in a conspiracy with Daryl to have her falsely imprisoned. (Doc. # 7 Ex. 5). MacBan represented the hospital in that matter while Defendant Allan Duprey ("Duprey"), an attorney, represented Hall. (Doc. # 7 Exs. 6, 10; Doc. # 15 at 2, 11-12). The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict, and Defendant Judge Charles Sabalos ("Judge Sabalos") ordered Hall to pay taxable costs in the amount of $29,853.04. Id.
The third case involved Hall's allegations that Daryl and Tommie had engaged in perjury, theft, slander, and malicious interference with her health. (Doc. # 7 Ex. 7). Judge Kelly was assigned to preside over the case. (Doc. # 7 Exs. 7, 8, 9). MacBan represented Tommie in that case. Id. Judge Kelly granted Tommie's motion to dismiss, and he also imposed sanctions in the amount equal to Tommie's attorney's fees against Hall. (Doc. # 9).
After the conclusion of those suits, Hall moved to Ohio and instigated the current action on January 3, 2006. (Doc. # 1). Although quite difficult to discern, it appears that Hall alleges that MacBan, Daryl, Tommie, Judges Kelly and Sabalos, and Duprey violated her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Hall also seems to assert that the Defendants committed perjury and conspired to unlawfully detain her. Id.
Defendants MacBan, Daryl, and Tommie now move to dismiss all of Hall's claims against them pursuant to Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 12b(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6). (Doc. # # 7, 11, 13). With briefing on the motion now complete, the Court turns to an examination of the issues presented within that motion.
MacBan, Daryl, and Tommie assert that five separate grounds contained within Fed. R. Civ. P. 12b warrant dismissal. The Court shall only set forth the standard of review for those sections that the Court finds applicable to the instant motion.
I. Rule 12b(1) - Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
Defendants first contend that dismissal is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), which enables a defendant to raise by motion the defense of "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter." In considering such a motion: the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes concerning jurisdiction, and both parties are free to supplement the record by affidavits. However, where a defendant argues that the plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts in her complaint to create subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court takes the allegations in the complaint as true.
Nichols v. Muskingum College, 318 F.3d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). A plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction. Id.; Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l ...