United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Shirley D. Webster, Plaintiff,
Elizabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk of the Court; Judge Moritz; Judge McKay; Judge Clara Egan; and Judge Gregory K. Frizzell, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Honorable Ronald A. White United States District Judge
Complaint [Docket No. 1] in this matter was filed on April
23, 2018. On May 2, 2018, the case was reassigned to
this court [Docket No. 4].
court construes Plaintiff's allegations liberally as she
is pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972). Plaintiff argues that she was defrauded of
twenty-four million seven hundred thousand dollars by
Defendants. All Defendants are officers of the court, either
in this court or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
has previously brought other actions in this court, but two
cases are specifically mentioned in the Complaint and its
exhibits (Nos. 17-CV-312-GKF-JFJ; and 18-CV-205-CVE-JFJ). The
court takes judicial notice of the docket sheets of these two
cases. See United States v. Ahidley, 486
F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (courts have
“discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed
records ... concerning matters that bear directly upon the
disposition of the case at hand”). See also, St.
Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172
(10th Cir. 1979)(“[F]ederal courts, in
appropriate circumstances, may take notice of proceedings in
other courts, both within and without the federal judicial
system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
matters at issue.”)
first-referenced matter (17-CV-312) was originally filed on
June 2, 2017. It is styled Shirley Dionne Garrett and
Dewayne M. Garrett v. Lotus Investment Funds Inc., LLC.
On October 3, 2017, the Honorable Gregory K. Frizzell entered
an order granting various motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs
appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 10,
2017. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its Decision
on February 28, 2018, and the Mandate was issued on March 22,
second-referenced matter (18-CV-205) was removed to the
Northern District of Oklahoma on April 13, 2018 from the
Washington County District Court. It is styled Lotus
Investment Fund 1, LLC v. Shirley Dionne Garrett and Dwayne
M. Garrett. An Opinion and Order was entered on April
19, 2018, remanding the case to the Oklahoma state court.
alleges that the manner in which the cases were conducted
shows the alleged corruption. Plaintiff alleges that the
Opinion in the second case was filed “before the
mandate was up” in the first case. Both cases
apparently involve Plaintiff and a dispute with Lotus
Investment Fund 1, LLC.
majority of Plaintiff's Complaint, however, makes
allegations regarding a divorce decree and the award of
marital property between Plaintiff's nephew (Dwayne M.
Garrett) and the nephew's ex-wife (Carlotta Lowe Gordon
Garrett). That matter has been litigated a number of times in
district court has the authority to sua sponte
dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) if it is “
‘patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not
prevail on the facts alleged.” Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1074 n. 2 (10th Cir.2007);
see also McKinney v. State of Oklahoma,
Dep't of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th
Cir.1991). The court must determine whether Plaintiff has
stated a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to
To survive dismissal, a complaint must allege sufficient
facts which, taken as true, state a plausible claim for
relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A complaint is plausible
if there are sufficient facts to allow “the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. That is, the
factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
“above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
Diaz v. United States Attorney Gen., 669 Fed.Appx.
949 (10th Cir. 2016).
should be dismissed when the complaint provides no
“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). “Once a claim has been stated adequately, it
may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with
the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 562.
For the purpose of making the dismissal determination, a
court must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint as true, even if doubtful in fact, and must
construe the allegations in the light most favorable to
claimant. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. However, a court
need not accept as true those allegations that are conclusory
in nature. Erikson v. Pawnee Cnty. Bd. Of Cnty.
Com'rs, 263 F.3d 1151, 1154-55 (10th Cir .2001).
“[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.3d 1106,
1109-10 (10th Cir.1991).
instant case, the Complaint claims that Defendants prepared
“false writings with the intent to conceal
defrauding” Plaintiff. The only assertions Plaintiff
offers in this regard is the timing of the orders entered in
the previous cases. Additionally, this court has no legal
basis to exercise jurisdiction over a divorce ...