United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT are the [39, 42, 44] Motions to Dismiss
filed by the remaining defendants: Peoples Bank, Biloxi,
Mississippi; Bradley W. Rath; Timothy L. Murr; and Anna Ward
Sudmann. The plaintiff, Rena Hill, has not filed responses to
the Motions. After reviewing the Motions, the record in this
matter, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the
Motions to Dismiss should be granted.
Hill filed this pro se lawsuit, claiming that one or more of
the defendants violated her constitutional rights by taking
away her right to serve as mother, legal custodian, and legal
guardian of her adult son, who is a veteran of the United
States Military. This Court previously dismissed Hill's
claims against Judge Jennifer Schloegel in a  Memorandum
Opinion and Order entered on March 7, 2018. Magistrate Judge
Parker also entered an  Order granting the Motion for
More Definite Statement filed by Peoples Bank. Peoples Bank
and the other remaining defendants now seek dismissal
pursuant to Fed. R. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1).
R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)
Court previously held in its  Memorandum Opinion and
Order, to the extent that Hill seeks to overturn a final
order entered in Chancery Court, Hill's claim would be
barred by the Rooker/Feldman abstention doctrine.
See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06
(1994) (explaining that the Rooker/Feldman doctrine
bars a losing party “from seeking what in substance
would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United
States district court, based on the losing party's claim
that the state judgment itself violates the loser's
R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court
must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view those
facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d
754, 758 (5th Cir. 2015). “The court's task is to
determine whether the plaintiff has stated a legally
cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the
plaintiff's likelihood of success.” Lone Star
Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383,
387 (5th Cir. 2010). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
mistake.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The Fifth Circuit
“interprets Rule 9(b) strictly, requiring the plaintiff
to specify the statements contended to be fraudulent,
identify the speaker, state when and where the statements
were made, and explain why the statements were
fraudulent.” Flaherty, 565 F.3d at 206-07;
see also Williams v. WMX Techs., Inc., 112 F.3d 175,
179 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that a party alleging fraud
must, at a minimum, plead the “who, what, when, where,
and how” of the alleged fraud).
Complaint and the  Response she submitted to Judge
Parker's  Order requiring a more definite statement
do not specify what claims she seeks to file against which
defendants. However, she makes vague, unsupported allegations
of racial discrimination, wiretapping, computer hacking,
hostage-holding, fraud, conspiracy, invasion of privacy, and
violations of constitutional and civil rights. Hill has not
stated sufficient facts to support any of these claims.
Therefore, Hill's Complaint and  Response are
insufficient to state plausible claims upon which relief can
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [39,
42, 44] Motions to Dismiss filed by the remaining defendants,
Peoples Bank, Biloxi, Mississippi, Bradley W. Rath, Timothy
L. Murr, and Anna Ward Sudmann, are GRANTED.
The Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to