Olavarria v. Wake Cnty. Human Servs. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
    controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
    with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    NO. COA13-1215
    NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed: 1 July 2014
    REINALDO OLAVARRIA,
    Plaintiff,
    v.                                      Wake County
    No. 13 CVS 00491
    WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES: MARY
    MORRIS, WARREN LUDWIG, MARILYN
    FLETCHER, RAMON ROJANO, KATHY
    SUTEHALL, LINDA CLEMENTS. WENDELL
    POLICE DEPARTMENT: ROY D.
    HOLLOWAY, JAMES E. GILL, and VANCE
    JOHNSON,
    Defendants.
    Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 6 August 2013 by
    Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court.
    Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 March 2014.
    Reinaldo Olavarria, Pro Se.
    Office of the Wake County Attorney, by Assistant Wake
    County Attorney Kenneth R. Murphy, III, for Defendants Wake
    County Human Services, Mary Morris, Warren Ludwig, Marilyn
    Fletcher, Ramon Rojano, Kathy Sutehall, and Linda Clements.
    Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, by Kari R. Johnson, for
    Defendants Wendell Police Department, Roy D. Holloway,
    James E. Gill, and Vance Johnson.
    DILLON, Judge.
    -2-
    Reinaldo       Olavarria      (“Plaintiff”)        appeals       from    the     trial
    court’s    order   dismissing      his    claims       against       Defendants         with
    prejudice pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5), and (6) of the
    North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.                    We affirm.
    I. Factual & Procedural Background
    On or about 3 January 2012, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
    filed    two   nearly     identical      complaints,         one     in   Wake      County
    District Court and one in Wake County Superior Court.1                                   The
    complaints     asserted    the    same    claims       against       Defendants         Wake
    County    Human    Services    (“WCHS”),        Mary       Morris,    Warren       Ludwig,
    Marilyn    Fletcher,      Ramon    Rojano,          Kathy    Sutehall,       and     Linda
    Clements (hereinafter, “Wake County Defendants”), and Defendants
    Wendell Police Department (“WPD”), Roy D. Holloway, James E.
    Gill,    and   Vance    Johnson     (hereinafter,           “Wendell      Defendants”)
    (collectively,      “Defendants”).             In    his    complaints,       Plaintiff
    alleged that Defendants had wrongfully investigated and arrested
    him for misdemeanor child abuse in January 2011, following an
    incident in which his daughter “hit her head on the head board
    of her bed while throwing a tantrum regarding taking a bath” and
    after    “trying   to   maneuver      around        [Plaintiff]      to     get    to   her
    1
    Plaintiff’s district court complaint is dated 30 December 2011
    and does not bear a file stamp.       Plaintiff’s superior court
    complaint is dated 30 December 2011 and is filed stamped 3
    January 2012.
    -3-
    sister.”      Plaintiff    further   alleged    that   he    was    criminally
    charged on 18 January 2010; that the Wake County Department of
    Health and Human Services placed him on its list of “responsible
    individuals” (“RIL”), see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-311(b) (2011), in
    February 2010; and that the charges against him were dismissed
    in May 2010.      Plaintiff’s claims, though not numbered and set
    out separately as such in the complaints, consisted of, inter
    alia, violation of his constitutional rights – specifically, his
    right   to    procedural    due   process   –    gross      negligence,    and
    defamation.
    Defendants     filed   answers    denying   Plaintiff’s        allegations
    and moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints pursuant to Rules
    12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5), and (6) of the North Carolina Rules of
    Civil Procedure.    Defendants also requested that Plaintiff’s two
    complaints be consolidated in Wake County Superior Court.
    Defendants’ motions to dismiss and motions to transfer the
    district court case to superior court            were calendared to be
    heard at the 2 April 2012 session in Wake County Superior Court.
    Prior to the hearing, however, Plaintiff requested a continuance
    on grounds that he was seeking representation of an out-of-state
    attorney, Alfred Odom, and that Mr. Odom was “in the process of
    obtaining pro hac vice admission to the State of North Carolina
    -4-
    to   represent     [him]       in     this    case.”         Defendants         agreed      to
    Plaintiff’s request for a continuance.
    Defendants’ motions again came on for hearing on 21 May
    2012.      Plaintiff then informed Defendants that he was continuing
    to   have    difficulties       securing       Mr.       Odom’s    representation         and
    provided Defendants with a letter purportedly drafted (but not
    signed) by Mr. Odom stating Mr. Odom’s intention to represent
    Plaintiff in this case.
    Plaintiff’s       claims       were    ultimately       consolidated         in     Wake
    County Superior Court, where Defendants’ motions came on for
    hearing on 5 November 2012.                  Plaintiff appeared at the hearing
    pro se.       By order filed 23 January 2013, the court granted
    Defendants’      motions    to       dismiss       “based     upon       the    failure    of
    plaintiff to have a Summons issued and served with the Complaint
    as required by Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
    Procedure.”      Plaintiff did not appeal from the 23 January 2013
    order.
    On    11   January       2013,      Plaintiff        filed     a    new    complaint
    alleging      essentially           the     same     claims       against        the      same
    Defendants.       The    new    complaint          was   signed    by     Mr.    Odom,     and
    summonses were served on Defendants.                      Defendants filed answers
    asserting numerous defenses and moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s
    -5-
    claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5), and (6) of the
    North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.          Defendants served Mr.
    Odom with all documents.
    On 1 July 2013, Mr. Odom filed a motion with the court
    seeking pro hac vice admission.           Attached to the motion was a
    statement signed by Plaintiff in which Plaintiff indicated that
    he had retained Mr. Odom to represent him in this case.                 By
    order entered 12 July 2013, the court denied Mr. Odom’s motion
    for pro hac vice admission on grounds that Mr. Odom had failed
    to   associate   with   a   North   Carolina   attorney   in   filing   his
    motion.
    Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims came on
    for hearing on 25 July 2013, at which time Plaintiff requested a
    continuance in light of Mr. Odom’s failure to gain pro hac vice
    admission.     The court denied Plaintiff’s request and proceeded
    to hear arguments on the merits of Defendants’ motions.                 By
    order entered 6 August 2013, the trial court dismissed all of
    Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.          From this order, Plaintiff
    appeals.
    II. Analysis
    A. Plaintiff’s Request to Withdraw his Complaint
    -6-
    Plaintiff first asserts that Mr. Odom was unauthorized to
    file    the    11    January       2013    complaint              on   his      behalf,        and,
    “[b]ecause     of    [this]      error,    Plaintiff              moves     this    matter       be
    remanded      to    the    North      Carolina           Superior         Court,     to        allow
    Plaintiff     to    withdraw     this     complaint,              without      prejudice;        or,
    that [he] be allowed to amend the complaint, upon remand, and
    correct any deficiencies in filing.”                      Plaintiff alleges that Mr.
    Odom “defrauded” him and engaged in “illegal” conduct and that
    Mr.    Odom    is    liable      to     him        for    breach          of    contract        and
    malpractice.        Whether or not Plaintiff may have causes of action
    against Mr. Odom, however, is beyond the scope of this appeal.
    Our concern here is limited to the validity of the complaint at
    issue, and, as Defendants point out, this Court has specifically
    held that “a pleading filed by an attorney not authorized to
    practice      law   in    this    state       is    not       a    nullity.”         Thiel        v.
    Detering, 
    68 N.C. App. 754
    , 756, 
    315 S.E.2d 789
    , 791 (1984); see
    also Reid v. Cole, 
    187 N.C. App. 261
    , 265, 
    652 S.E.2d 718
    , 720-
    21 (2007).
    Closely      related      to   Plaintiff’s             first       argument        is     his
    contention that he was not served with Defendants’ filings in
    this case – the filings were instead served on Mr. Odom – and
    thus   Plaintiff      “also      cite[s]      lack       of       service      of   process       in
    -7-
    support of his pleas to have the case remanded to allow the case
    to be withdrawn and/or amended to cure deficiencies in filing.”
    Our    review   of    the    record,    however,      reveals   that    Plaintiff
    consistently         represented       to     Defendants    throughout       these
    proceedings – from the time Plaintiff filed his two original
    complaints on 3 January 2012 up until the 25 July 2013 hearing
    on Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint in the instant
    case – that Mr. Odom would be representing him as his attorney
    in    this   case.      It   appears        that   Defendants   were,   in   fact,
    required to serve Mr. Odom with their filings – and prohibited
    from serving them on Plaintiff – under Rule 4.2(a) of the North
    Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which expressly forbids
    an attorney from directly communicating with an individual that
    he knows to be represented by another attorney in the action.
    This contention is accordingly overruled.
    B. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
    We next address the merits of the trial court’s dismissal
    of Plaintiff’s complaint.          The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s
    claims with prejudice “pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5),
    and (6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure based
    upon Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve the Defendants, lack
    of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s failure to allege waiver
    -8-
    of governmental immunity, and Plaintiff’s [f]ailure to otherwise
    assert    valid       claims       for        relief        against       the    Defendants.”
    Although there appear to be several grounds upon which dismissal
    was appropriate, we affirm the trial court’s decision based upon
    the   deficiencies         present       on    the     face        on   the     complaint,   as
    discussed below.
    This    Court       has    held    that    certain          governmental      entities,
    such as county boards, departments, and agencies, are not legal
    entities capable of being sued.                  Craig v. County of Chatham, 
    143 N.C. App. 30
    , 31, 
    545 S.E.2d 455
    , 456 (2001), aff’d in part,
    rev’d in part on other grounds, 
    356 N.C. 40
    , 
    565 S.E.2d 172
    (2002) (noting that, unlike the county itself, which possesses
    “the right to sue and be sued” pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
    153A-11, the Chatham County Board of Health and Chatham County
    Board of Commissioners are not entities capable of being sued).
    Accordingly,        the     claims       asserted           in     Plaintiff’s      complaint
    against      WCHS    and        WPD,    which        fall        within    the    purview    of
    governmental entities incapable of being sued, were correctly
    dismissed.
    The remaining Wake County and Wendell Defendants consist of
    individuals employed by WCHS and WPD, respectively.                                This Court
    has stated that “[g]overnmental immunity shields municipalities
    -9-
    and the officers or employees thereof sued in their official
    capacities from suits based on torts committed while performing
    a governmental function.”         Kephart by Tutwiler v. Pendergraph,
    
    131 N.C. App. 559
    , 563, 
    507 S.E.2d 915
    , 918 (1998) (emphasis
    added).     County officers and employees are likewise shielded by
    governmental      immunity    “when   they    are   sued   in   their    official
    capacities.”       Childs v. Johnson, 
    155 N.C. App. 381
    , 386, 
    573 S.E.2d 662
    , 665 (2002).
    Our Supreme Court has stated the following with respect to
    the manner in which claims may be properly asserted against a
    defendant    in    his   individual,     as    opposed     to   his     official,
    capacity:
    Pleadings should indicate in the caption the
    capacity in which a plaintiff intends to
    hold   a   defendant     liable.   For  example,
    including    the    words    “in   his  official
    capacity” or “in his individual capacity”
    after a defendant’s name obviously clarifies
    the defendant’s status. In addition, the
    allegations as to the extent of liability
    claimed should provide further evidence of
    capacity. Finally, in the prayer for relief,
    plaintiffs should indicate whether they seek
    to   recover   damages     from   the  defendant
    individually     or   as    an   agent  of   the
    governmental entity.
    Mullis v. Sechrest, 
    347 N.C. 548
    , 554, 
    495 S.E.2d 721
    , 724-25
    (1998).     Our Supreme Court recently indicated that the foregoing
    Mullis    “directive     is    mandatory”      in   determining       whether   a
    -10-
    complaint asserts a claim against a defendant in his individual
    capacity.      White v. Trew, 
    366 N.C. 360
    , 364, 
    736 S.E.2d 166
    , 169
    (2013) (“Because the indicia of capacity mandated by Mullis are
    absent from the caption, allegations, and prayer for relief, we
    must presume that defendant is being sued in only his official
    capacity.”).
    Our review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that Plaintiff
    has alleged claims against these Defendants in their official
    capacities.      Neither the caption of the complaint nor the prayer
    for   relief     indicates     an    intention    to    assert    claims      or   seek
    damages against these Defendants in their individual capacities.
    The body of the complaint does not specify that the claims are
    asserted     against     any    Defendant        in    his   or   her       individual
    capacity; in fact, paragraph 38 of the complaint states that
    each of the Wake County Defendants “acted in their official
    capacity    as    officers,     agents,     and/or      employees      of    defendant
    WCHS,” and, similarly, paragraph 39 of the complaint states that
    each of the Wendell Defendants “acted in their official capacity
    as officers, agents, and/or employees of defendant WPD.”                            We,
    therefore,     presume   that       the   complaint     asserts     claims     against
    these Defendants in their official capacities only.                     
    Id.
    Because     all    of    the    claims      set    forth    in    Plaintiff’s
    -11-
    complaint   are   asserted   against   either   entities   incapable   of
    being sued or employees of those entities           in their official
    capacities only2, and because the complaint does not specifically
    allege a waiver of governmental immunity, we hereby affirm the
    trial court’s dismissal of these claims.         Paquette v. County of
    Durham, 
    155 N.C. App. 415
    , 418, 
    573 S.E.2d 715
    , 717 (2002).
    AFFIRMED.
    Judges STROUD and HUNTER, JR. concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).
    2
    We note that there is no question that the conduct of the
    individual Defendants of which Plaintiff complains concerns
    Defendants’   conduct while   performing official government
    functions.   Kephart by Tutwiler, 131 N.C. App. at 563, 
    507 S.E.2d at 918
    .