Patrick J. Powers v. Connie Williams, Jim Rollings and Springdale School District
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
SAM BIRD, JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CA07-882
MAY 14, 2008
PATRICK J. POWERS
APPELLANT
V.
CONNIE WILLIAMS, JIM ROLLINGS
and SPRINGDALE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-06-2614]
HON. MARK LINDSAY, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Appellant Patrick Powers appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint and denial
of his motion to recuse. We find no error and affirm.
In 2003, Powers’s minor daughter, EP, confided to her high-school counselor, appellee
Connie Williams, that Powers was acting inappropriately around her. Williams suspected that
Powers was sexually abusing EP and referred her to a psychotherapist, who reported the
matter to the child-abuse hotline. Thereafter, Powers’s wife filed for divorce, and Powers
attempted suicide on several occasions. He subsequently lost his job, and the Washington
County prosecutor filed felony incest charges against him. Williams provided shelter for EP
when she moved away from home during this time.
In February 2004, Powers and his former wife were divorced. The court found that
Powers had molested EP and, months later, Powers pled guilty to two counts of incest.
Powers stated a factual basis for his plea and admitted at the sentencing hearing that he had
engaged in sexual acts with his daughter many times.
In 2006, Powers filed a pro se complaint against appellees Connie Williams; school
superintendent Jim Rollins (whom he designated as “Jim Rollings”); and the Springdale
School District (SSD) for outrage, negligence, and conspiracy. Powers primarily accused
Williams of unduly influencing EP to make allegations of sexual abuse and of “creating
criminal allegations” against him. The trial court dismissed Powers’s complaint on several
grounds, including failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted and the doctrine of
judicial estoppel. Powers now appeals pro se from that ruling and from the trial court’s refusal
to recuse.
Powers argues first that the trial court erred in failing to recuse. We affirm the trial
court’s decision not to recuse for the same reasons stated in Powers v. Powers, CA 07-880, a
related opinion handed down today. The trial court simultaneously heard recusal motions on
both cases and made the same ruling on each. Powers’s brief in this appeal presents no new
arguments of merit.
Next, Powers argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint. In reviewing
the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, we liberally construe the complaint, treating all
factual allegations as true, and viewing them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
Fleming v. Cox Law Firm, 363 Ark. 17, 210 S.W.3d 866 (2005). Applying this standard, we
agree with the trial court’s decision to dismiss. The complaint does not mention Jim Rollins
except in the caption. The only allegations that SSD acted independently or through any
employees other than Williams to cause Powers’s damages are conclusory rather than factual.
-2-
CA07-882
Therefore, as to Rollins and SSD, the complaint fails to state facts upon which relief can be
granted. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Martin v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 344 Ark. 177, 40
S.W.3d 733 (2001) (holding that our rules require fact pleading, and a complaint must state
facts, not mere conclusions, in order to entitle the pleader to relief).
Regarding Williams, the complaint contains long narratives pertaining to her and to
other persons, and it is difficult to ascertain from the many accusations what conduct of hers
Powers cites as the cause of his particular harm.1 As best we can understand, Powers essentially
alleges that Williams is responsible for all the misfortunes that befell him after EP accused him
of sexual abuse—getting divorced, attempting suicide, being charged with incest, pleading
guilty, losing his job, and being declared mentally disabled. He claims that Williams created
“illusory impressions of sex abuse”; conversed with EP’s therapist; and subjected EP to undue
influence and “overwhelming personal attention.” We agree with the trial court that Powers’s
claims are patently inconsistent with the positions he has taken in other cases and are therefore
barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
The elements of a prima facie case for judicial estoppel are 1) a party must assume a
position clearly inconsistent with a position taken in an earlier case, or with a position taken
in the same case; 2) a party must assume the inconsistent position with the intent to
manipulate the judicial process to gain an unfair advantage; 3) a party must have successfully
maintained the position in an earlier proceeding such that the court relied upon the position
taken; and 4) the integrity of the judicial process of at least one court must be impaired or
To cite an example, Powers asserts that Williams violated her statutory duty by not
reporting EP’s allegations of sexual abuse.
1
-3-
CA07-882
injured by the inconsistent positions taken. Dupwe v. Wallace, 355 Ark. 521, 140 S.W.3d 464
(2004). While Powers alleges in this case that Williams influenced his daughter to make false
accusations of sexual abuse and conspired to create the “illusion” that he molested his child,
he acknowledged in prior cases the truth of the abuse allegations. The divorce court found
that Powers sexually abused EP, and Powers did not challenge that ruling on appeal. See
Powers v. Powers, CA04-641 (Feb. 2, 2005) (not designated for publication). The criminal
court relied on his voluntary plea of guilty to two counts of incest, and Powers testified
unequivocally at the sentencing hearing that he had engaged in sexual conduct with EP on
numerous occasions. Powers’s posture in the divorce and criminal cases therefore directly
contradicts his current claim that Williams was responsible for inducing and creating the
sexual-abuse charges. Powers obviously means to manipulate the judicial process to cast blame
on others for his admitted incestuous conduct, and it is plain that, were he allowed to do so,
it would impair the integrity of all courts involved.
Powers’s brief contains numerous additional accusations of wrongdoing or misconduct
by the trial court or by the parties to this case or other cases. Those arguments, including that
the court erroneously dismissed his complaint with prejudice, are either not sufficiently
developed, not supported by authority, or are manifestly untenable.
Affirmed.
PITTMAN, C.J., and VAUGHT, J., agree.
-4-
CA07-882
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.