Wilson v. Leigh Law Group, P.C,

Background

Michael Geary Wilson filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that attorneys, law firms, a school district, and individuals engaged in litigation misconduct in an earlier related proceeding. According to Wilson, defendants mislabeled four filings as oppositions rather than motions to dismiss, included fraudulent or deceitful statements, failed to follow service rules, delayed service of another filing, and submitted a false proof of service. He alleged that this conduct interfered with his ability to respond and denied him due process.

Wilson asserted seven federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, including civil-rights and conspiracy claims, along with four state-law claims for fraud, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Court’s analysis

Because Wilson sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute requires dismissal if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief or is frivolous or malicious.

The court construed Wilson’s first claim, titled “Fraud in Obtaining Orders,” as an attempt under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain relief from a final order or judgment. The court explained that an independent action to set aside a judgment requires, among other things, a meritorious claim or defense, diligence, no adequate alternative remedy, and a judgment that is manifestly unconscionable. The court found that Wilson could not meet this demanding standard. When he filed this action, there was not yet a final order or judgment in the earlier related proceeding. The dismissal that was later entered was based on the duplication of claims in another federal action, not on arguments raised in the challenged filings. The court therefore concluded that the alleged fraud and procedural violations did not affect the ruling. It dismissed the first claim and found amendment would be futile, so the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The court dismissed Wilson’s second through seventh federal claims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. That doctrine generally protects people, government entities, lawyers, and law firms from liability based on petitioning the government, including litigation activity. The court found that the defendants’ filings, service of those filings, and proofs of service were protected petitioning activity, and that allowing Wilson’s claims to succeed would burden that activity.

The court considered but rejected the “sham” exception, which can remove protection from petitioning activity that is objectively baseless or involves fraud that deprives litigation of its legitimacy. The court found that the challenged filings contained reasonable arguments against Wilson’s requested amendment, even though the court granted his motion to amend. It also found that Wilson identified and challenged the alleged false statements during the earlier proceeding, and that those statements did not form the basis of the earlier court’s rulings. The court dismissed the second through seventh claims and found amendment would be futile, so those claims were dismissed without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Wilson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the federal claims with prejudice. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court also vacated the case-management conference scheduled for August 4, 2020. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.