Morales v. Adams

Morales v. Adams, 6-1-17 Wncv (Teachout, J., June 28, 2017)
[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the
accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]
STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Washington Unit Docket No. 6-1-17 Wncv
Willard F. Buell and Serendipity Morales
Plaintiffs
v.
Ed Adams et al.
Defendants
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The complaint, filed on January 5, 2017, asserts that the plaintiffs are in a monogamous,
same-sex relationship and seeks $7,600,000 for largely undefined claims based on the plaintiffs’
sexual orientation or identity. The named plaintiffs are Serendipity Morales and Willard Buell.
Defendants consist of the State and 7 individual corrections officials. In the signature block of
the complaint are signatures for both Morales and Buell. Two notices of pro se appearances and
motions to waive filing fees were also filed, one set for each plaintiff. The ones for Mr. Buell
purport to be signed by him. Court staff granted the motions to proceed in forma pauperis.
On January 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a one-page handwritten motion seeking to
voluntarily dismiss the complaint. It purports to be signed by both Ms. Morales and Mr. Buell.
On January 17, 2017, the court received a letter from Mr. Buell which reads as follows:
I am writing you as I received this notice of this case that was filed with
this Honorable Court and I don’t have any idea when it was filed as I knew
nothing about this case until I received this notice this morning.
I have had nothing to do with this case being filed nor did I even know
that the case was being filed or who it was filed against.
I am writing this Honorable Court to request that my name be withdrawn
from this case I have no idea what the case even consists of and I would like for
my name to be withdrawn from this case, and if this Honorable Court receives
anymore filings from Serendipity Morales that has my name included I would like
to ask that this Honorable Court forward anything that is filed with my name on it
that is filed by Serendipity Morales to me here at the Southern State Correctional
Facility in Springfield, Vermont.
I have never received anything to do with this case until I received this
notice this morning, so as stated I have no idea what this case even consists of.
I would like to know if my name was signed to this filing as I state I have
never seen this case prior to today.
I would really appreciate my name being withdrawn from this case and not
have my name involved in any of this filing [sic].
On January 27, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to Mr. Buell only, and
scheduled a show cause hearing at which “Serendipity Morales will be required to explain how
the case came to be filed with Mr. Buell as a plaintiff.” The hearing was initially scheduled for
February 13, 2017 and then continued to March 2, 2017. On February 24, Ms. Morales (alone)
sent a letter to the court asking it to dismiss the case and cancel the hearing. The court did
neither. The hearing was held. Ms. Morales neither called in nor made any appearance at the
hearing. She also filed nothing, much less anything explaining how Mr. Buell came to be a
plaintiff in this case.
On March 3, 2017, the court issued an entry order in response to the request to dismiss:
The case is not dismissed.
Serendipity Morales was required to appear on March 2, 2017 for a Show Cause
Hearing to explain how the case came to be filed with Mr. Buell as a plaintiff.
The hearing was held, but Serendipity Morales did not appear, despite the fact
that the Motion to Dismiss had not been granted and the hearing had not been
cancelled. The hearing is continued to a new date.
Serendipity Morales is ordered to appear at the new hearing date and time
by telephone to explain how the case came to be filed with Mr. Buell as a
Plaintiff and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure
to attend the Show Cause Hearing on March 2, 2017.
The new hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2017.
On March 10, 2017, Ms. Morales (alone) filed another motion to voluntarily dismiss this
case. In it, she represented: “I have not heard anything back with respect to my previous
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss.”1 She also mentions in the motion that she has cases against Mr.
Buell in other courts relating to “acts of domestic abuse.”
On March 13, 2017, the court received a letter from Mr. Buell supported by an executed
and notarized affidavit from him. He clearly asserts that he has no contact with Ms. Morales as
they are in different facilities, that he knew nothing about the filings in this case bearing his
name, and that Ms. Morales forged his name on all of them.
At the second hearing on March 27, 2017, Ms. Morales again, despite clear notice to
appear, did not appear.
On April 27, 2017, Ms. Morales filed a document representing that Mr. Buell admitted in
text messages to third parties that he lied about whether Ms. Morales forged his signature.
No defendant has ever been served in this case.
1
It is possible that she had not yet received the court’s March 3 entry when she said she had not received anything
responsive to her dismissal motion. However, subsequently she has never provided any explanation about how Mr.
Buell became a plaintiff in this case.
2
Rule 11
Rule 11(a) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party’s attorney, if there
is one, or an unrepresented party to sign “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other document
that requires a signature” in that persons’s “individual name.” V.R.C.P. 11(a). The significance
of that signature and other representations to the court is explained in subsection (b):
Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing,
submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other document, an
attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s
knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to
cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, or, if
specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
V.R.C.P. 11(b). Violations of Rule 11 are punishable with appropriate sanctions. V.R.C.P.
11(c). The obligation is important to the integrity of the functioning of the court. The court
needs to know that pleadings are based on good faith inquiry and for a proper purpose and that
the parties filing them take responsibility for the accuracy of the content.
The record raises the question of whether Ms. Morales forged Mr. Buell’s name on the
complaint, notice to proceed pro se, motion to waive filing fees, and the first motion to dismiss,
and then subsequently repeatedly sought dismissal and did not appear for two hearings when
required to do so. If so, these are serious Rule 11(b) violations.
On its own motion, the court now orders Ms. Morales to show cause why she should not
be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11 for such conduct.2
Accordingly, Ms. Morales shall have until July 21, 2017 to file a notarized affidavit
setting forth facts as to whether she violated Rule 11(b) in the manner specified above. See Zorn
v. Smith, 2011 VT 10, ¶ 14, 189 Vt. 219 (“Upon belief that these requirements have been
2
This is not Ms. Morales’ first experience with Rule 11. See Morales v. Pallito, Temporary Order, No. 242-8-12
Oscv (Vt. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2012) (permitting no further filings in IFP cases after Ms. Morales filed
approximately 50 frivolous cases in a short period of time).
3
violated, the court may issue an order describing the specific conduct in question and direct a
party to show cause why no violation should be found.”).
If nothing is filed, or if, after reviewing the filing, the court concludes that Ms. Morales
violated Rule 11, potential sanctions might possibly include, among others, a ruling that she may
not file pleadings with this court without prior approval of the court.
ORDER
All pending motions to dismiss any claims against the named Defendants are granted.
Ms. Morales shall have until July 21, 2017 to file a response to the above Order to Show
Cause in the manner described above.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of June 2017.
_____________________________
Mary Miles Teachout
Superior Judge
4