Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sloan v. Childress

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

September 6, 2019

SAMUEL H. SLOAN, Plaintiff,
v.
MARIA CHILDRESS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          M. HANNAH LAUCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on seven motions to dismiss:

         (1) Defendant Judge William G. Perry's ("Judge Petty") Renewed Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("Judge Petty's Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 51);

         (2) Defendants Norman K. Moon, United States District Judge ("Judge Moon"), [1]William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States;[2] and the United States Department of Justice's ("DOJ" and, collectively, the "Federal Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (the "Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 54);

         (3) Defendants Maria Childress, Chris Boiling, Shayam Raman, and Susan Swecker's (collectively, the "Democratic Party Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12 and 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (the "Democratic Party Defendants Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 56);

         (4) Defendant the Honorable Ralph S. Northam, Governor of Virginia's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("Governor Northam's Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 57);

         (5) Defendant Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("Attorney General Herring's Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 59);

         (6) Defendants Judge Lawrence Janow, Judge J. Michael Gamble, and Norman K. Moon, United States District Judge's[3] (collectively, the "Virginia Judges") Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (the "Virginia Judges' Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 61); and, (7) Defendant Frank G. Davidson, Ill's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8 (the "Davidson Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 63).[4]

         Sloan responded to each of the motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 67-73.) None of the defendants replied to Sloan's response and the time to do so has expired.

         This matter is ripe for disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. As explained below, because Sloan failed to comply with the Court's prior order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court will grant the motions to dismiss and dismiss with prejudice Sloan's Amended Complaint. Even if the Court were to consider Sloan's Amended Complaint, the Court would likely find that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to several of the defendants and that Sloan failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants. The Court, then would likely dismiss Sloan's complaint under these alternate theories as well.[5]

         I. Background

         A. Summary of Allegations in Sloan's Original Complaint

         Sloan filed his original 86-page complaint in this Court seemingly seeking to hold Judge Janow, Judge Gamble, now-Judge Petty, Judge Moon, Davidson, Charles Roberts, and Darrell Jay Roberts accountable for kidnapping Sloan's daughter while Sloan and his daughter resided in the United Arab Emirates.[6] Sloan alleged that these defendants mistakenly believed that the Sloan family possessed great wealth, which the defendants could obtain by gaining custody of Sloan's daughter. Additionally, Sloan maintained that "[t]he Roberts were determined to kidnap the child so they could raise her as a Christian, rather than as a Muslim as both her parents were." (Compl. 17, ECF No. 1.) Sloan asked this Court to find Judge Janow, Judge Gamble, Judge Petty, Davidson, and Judge Moon guilty of kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and hiding these crimes. Sloan suggested that the Court place these defendants "in a secure location from which there will be no escape such as Guantanamo Bay." (Id. 84.)

         In his original complaint Sloan also sought an order from this Court declaring the "Virginia Felony Disenfranchisement Law" unconstitutional, (id. 3), and alleged that the Democratic Party Defendants wrongly excluded him from the ballot as a candidate for United States Congress.[7] Sloan sought numerous other types of relief as well.[8]

         In response to his original complaint, many of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and Charles Roberts and Darrell Roberts filed a joint Answer. The Court reviewed Sloan's original complaint and found that it "plainly offends Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8."[9] (Dec. 21, 2018 Order 3, ECF No. 49.) "[I]n deference to Sloan's pro se status, and in the interest of justice," the Court allowed Sloan to file an Amended Complaint and provided him clear directions as to what that Amended Complaint must include. (Id. 3-5.) Sloan then filed his Amended Complaint.

         B. Summary of Allegations in Sloan's Amended Complaint

         Although Sloan reduced his eighty-six pages of allegations to twenty-five pages in his Amended Complaint, he repeats many of his initial allegations with a similar absence of chronological or logical cohesion. For instance, without serious underpinning facts, Sloan maintains that Judge Janow, Judge Petty, Judge Moon, and Davidson "are clearly guilty of kidnapping and conspiring to kidnap Plaintiffs daughter and the cover-up of these crimes."[10](Am. Compl. 25, ECF No. 50.) He again requests that this Court "place[ these defendants] under arrest and place[ them] in a secure location from which there will be no escape such as Guantanamo Bay." (Id.)

         Sloan also renews his assertions that the Democratic Party Defendants wrongly excluded him from the ballot in a recent election, stating that Childress told Sloan's campaign manager "that 'her boss' had told her not to allow the name of Plaintiff to appear on the ballot." (Id. 17.) Sloan maintains that he does not know who serves as Childress's "boss" and that, as a result, he named Raman, Swecker, Boiling, Governor Northam, and Virginia Attorney General Herring as defendants. (Id.) He again seeks an order from this Court declaring the "Virginia Felony Disenfranchisement Law" unconstitutional, (id. 22), alongside a spattering of seemingly unrelated additional avenues of relief that mirror those in his first complaint.[11]

         The defendants filed the instant motions to dismiss in response to Sloan's Amended Complaint. Sloan's reply to each followed.

         II.

         Sloan Failed to Comply With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and Failed to Obey This ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.