Cook v. State of Tennessee

Background

Marilyn Yvette Cook, proceeding without a lawyer, was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court then conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant immune from such relief.

Cook named the State of Tennessee, the Blount County Register of Deeds, Phyllis Crisp, the Alcoa Police Department, and Kris Sanders as defendants. She alleged that the court had jurisdiction because she was a California resident, the defendants resided in Tennessee, and more than $75,000 was at stake. She sought $365 million.

The complaint referred to a “True Bill,” property documents concerning 273 West Stephenson Street in Alcoa, Tennessee, affidavits, estates, trusts, liens, commercial-law principles, and an alleged “judgment in estoppel.” It asserted that the defendants interfered with commercial affairs and disregarded Cook as a creditor. The opinion states that the complaint did not include factual allegations about any of the named defendants or clearly explain the legal basis of Cook’s claims.

Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. It also discussed Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a claim. Although courts generally accept factual allegations as true at this stage, they do not have to accept bare legal conclusions or conclusory statements.

The court concluded that Cook had not identified the relevant conduct of each defendant or the specific claims asserted against each defendant. The court said that although Cook might be seeking a ruling that she owned the property described in the attachments, she had not clearly explained the legal basis for that request or how her theory related to any particular defendant.

The court separately noted that the State of Tennessee is generally protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from lawsuits in federal court unless it has consented to be sued. The court found no allegations suggesting that Cook’s claims fell within any such consent.

Ruling and next steps

The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. Instead, Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered Cook to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. She was permitted either to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or to respond explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient, with a deadline of November 17, 2023.

The order states that if Cook did not respond by that date, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Any amended complaint had to use the case caption and number from the order, state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, and include all intended facts, claims, and defendants rather than incorporate the original complaint by reference.