Green v. State of North Carolina et al, No. 4:2008cv00135 - Document 71 (E.D.N.C. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment and 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 11/7/11. (Lee, L.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Green v. State of North Carolina et al Doc. 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION NO. 4:08-CV-135-H GEORGIA ARNETTE GREEN, Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, LENOIR COUNTY, and SUPERIOR COURT OF LENOIR COUNTY, Defendants. This jUdgment motions. matter is before the filed by defendants. The time court on motions Plaintiff has for further filings for summary responded to the has expired, and these matters are ripe for adjudication. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is the latest in a Arnette Green in which Ms. federal law." slew of actions filed by Georgia Green claims various violations of Plaintiff commenced the instant matter by filing a 'Other actions filed by Ms. Green include Green v. Maroules, No. 4:04-CV-111-H (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 2, 2004); Green v. Pitt & Greene EMC, No. 4:05-CV-98-BR (E.D.N.C filed Aug. 1., 2005); Green v. Pitt & Greene EMC, No. 4:05-CV-115-BR IE.D.N.C. notice of removal filed Sept. 14, 2005); Green v. Vickery, No. 4:06-CV 181-F IE.D.N.C. filed Aug. 15, 2006); Green v. Vickery, No. Dockets.Justia.com motion to in forma complaint proposed proceed on August 1, to refile plaintiff was referenced exhibits March 27, 2009, 2009. United plaintiff's review ordered On 2008. She attached. her along March 13, her her 2009, with complaint refiled with complaint the on In an Order and Recommendation dated May 21, States motion pursuant ("IFP") pauperis Magistrate to to proceed 28 Judge IFP, U.S.C. dismissal of certain claims.' James and § Gates E. conducted a 1915 (e) (2), granted fri voli ty recommending He also recommended that "Superior Court of Lenoir County" be substituted for "Lenoir County Court of Kinston, NC" as the name of the defendant court which is the subject of plaintiff's allegations. court adopted JUdge Gates' On October 21, recommendation directed the Clerk to issue summonses. in 2009, this its entirety and (Oct. 21, 2009 Order [DE # 17].) Upon the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissal in part. this court granted (Sept. 21, 2010 Order [DE #36].) which arose out of actions by the superior court All claims judge and/or the clerk of court within their capacities as judicial officers were dismissed as barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. 4:03-CV-122-H (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 25, 2003); and Green v. Turner, No. 4:08-CV-72-H (E.D.N.C. filed May 12, 2008). 'Judge Gates recommended the dismissal of claims against the law firm of Walker, Allen, Grice, Ammons & Foy ("Walker Allen firm"), attorney Jeffrey Ammons and attorney Ron Medlin. 2 Plaintiff's claims of accommodation regarding physical access to the Lenoir County State of North ("the State"). claims against Courthouse Carolina and Remaining the were dismissed Superior before as of Court the to Lenoir court are Defendants County plaintiff's State for accommodation regarding documents maintained by the Lenoir County Clerk of Superior Court, as well as County. all of plaintiff's claims against defendant Lenoir These claims are addressed in the motions currently before the court. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Plaintiff's amended II of the Americans §§ 12131 et seq., a lawsuit concerning with Disabilities ("Title 11"). brought an complaint alleges in the alleged Act ("ADA"), of 42 Title U.S.C. Plaintiff's claims arise out of Superior motor violations Court vehicle of Lenoir collision. County Plaintiff alleges that during the course of that action defendants failed to provide her with Courthouse sufficient failed provide to accommodate these her failures, hearing, physical access to the to accommodate her medical court visual documents impairment. in She she arrived late for a a format contends Lenoir County condition and sufficient that due to summary judgment motion and her case was dismissed by the presiding judge, violation of her rights to due process and equal protection. 3 to in COURT'S DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving Anderson v. party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Liberty Lobby, seeking Inc., summary U.S. 477 242, bears judgment 247 The (1986). the initial party burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party has met party may not rest on the its burden, allegations or the non-moving denials in its pleading, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, but "must come forward with 'specific facts trial. Matsushi ta I" showing that Elec. there Indus. Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) As this court has stated, the court to United States, a resolve 837 F. should determine genuine Ltd. v. issue zenith for Radio summary judgment is not a vehicle for Supp. whether Co., a (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (e)) . disputed trial court reviewing a is factual 123, 125 issues. Faircloth (E.D.N.C. 1993) v. Instead, claim at the summary judgment stage a genuine Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. 4 issue exists for trial. In making this inferences drawn favorable Inc., 369 determination, from the the underlying 654, 655 (1962) facts must in the view (per the light most United States v. to the non-moving party. U.S. court Diebold, Only disputes curiam). between the parties over facts that might affect the outcome of the case Anderson, properly preclude 477 at U.S. the 247-48. entry of summary Accordingly, the judgment. court must examine "both the materiality and the genuineness of the alleged fact issues" in ruling on this motion. Faircloth, 837 F. Supp. at 125. II. Plaintiff's Claim Against Defendant Lenoir County Plaintiff's allegations against defendant Lenoir County are that during the course of her state court action arising out of the motor vehicle collision, she was not provided with physical access to the Lenoir County courthouse which complied with her rights under the ADA. Defendant Lenoir standing necessary to County submits bring her that claims plaintiff against lacks Lenoir the County because, by her own admission, she did not avail herself of the handicap-accessible entrances. Plaintiff instead walked up the steps and into the front door unassisted. Therefore, Lenoir County argues that she cannot establish that she was "excluded" under the terms of the ADA. 5 Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, subjected to § 12132. show or activi ties discrimination To establish a (1) that qualified for any a disability; benefit in pUblic such violation of she has a the by of entity, entity." the ADA, (2) question; that and or 42 be U.S.C. plaintiff must she (3) is otherwise that she was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination based solely on the basis of the disability. Cir. 1999); Doe v. Baird v. University of Md. Rose, Med. 192 F.3d 462 Sys. Corp., (4th 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995) Plaintiff must show she is an individual with a disability who has been "excluded" in order to have sufficient standing to bring a claim under Title II.' prevented from accessing result her disability. of Plaintiff admits the Lenoir She chose County courthouse to the use accessible entrance and walk up the stairs at courthouse. parking spaces She did not or the lift main courthouse parking lot. avail herself located Her she was never near of the deposition as a non-handicap the front of the the handicapped entrance off the reveals that she 'While the federal circuit courts have recognized two exceptions to this requirement, both involve "organizational standing." Plaintiff cannot assert that she fits into either exception. 6 was late because and (2) keys she (1) forgot upon receiving a inside phone She her home. about call was not the from date the of the court late because hearing locked her of a lack of Plaintiff has not shown she was handicap-accessible facilities. excluded. Furthermore, from which a plaintiff has not come forward with reasonable juror could find that the Lenoir County The Lenoir courthouse entrances failed to comply with the ADA. County courthouse was built well before 1992, of Title II. the effective date In order to comply with Title II, must "operate each service, program or activity Lenoir so County activity, and § Courthouse] by individuals 35.150 (a) (emphasis entrances to accessible. the that the when viewed in its entirety, usable the with added). Lenoir (Dail Aff. ~ [offered in the service, program, County stair individuals case, courthouse. which two 2008, courthouse led C.F.R. 28 of the were three handicap The primary public entrance an exterior directly lift into as located next the main floor to signs to the of the (Dail Aff. ~ 9.) Accordingly, from which a to or is readily accessible to disabilities." In 5.) Lenoir County courthouse had handicapped parking spaces as well directing evidence plaintiff has not come forward with evidence reasonable juror could find that the Lenoir County 7 courthouse entrances fail motion defendant's Therefore, to comply with the ADA. for summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff's claim against defendant Lenoir County is DISMISSED. III. Plaintiff's Claims Against the State Plaintiff also claims that the State failed to provide her with court documents in a font accommodate her sight impairment. this and failure her rights she arrived late case to due was dismissed, process and size sufficiently large to She contends that because of to the summary jUdgment hearing resulting equal in a violation of protection. As her previously stated, to establish a violation of the ADA, plaintiff must show that she has qualified for the (1 ) a disability; benefit (2) that in question; and she is otherwise (3) that she was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination based solely on the basis of the disability. Cir. 1999); Doe v. Baird v. University of Md. Rose, Med. 192 F.3d 462 Sys. Corp., (4th 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that this plaintiff was not denied access to the courts nor that she suffered discrimination by the courts solely because of her disability. Summary judgment was entered against her at a hearing at which she did not appear because she became confused about the hearing date. She was then allowed to file a motion 8 to set aside the judgment with the court, date and even received a personal phone was given a hearing call from the trial She admits court administrator reminding her of the hearing. she had forgotten about the hearing, that she locked her keys in her house failed to call the court to advise it of her There are no facts showing that plaintiff has not been delay. able and to claims. file matters in the state court or to prosecute her Plaintiff has simply not shown she was denied access to the court or excluded from any benefit thereof. While the court understands that plaintiff would like to have the docket accessible to her in certain formats which would enable her to view it in larger font sizes. she has not shown that failure to provide documents in the format requested by her contributed to the dismissal of her action or deprive her of any right or benefit under the ADA. operated In fact, to the uncontroverted evidence in this case establishes that the court went out of its way to ensure that Ms. Green received actual notice of her hearing on the motion to set aside the state-court judgment. Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to support a finding that the State denied her any right or benefit due to disability, and defendants' is. therefore, GRANTED. 9 motions for summary judgment CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, judgment are GRANTED. This 7?1 day defendants' motions for summary The clerk is directed to close this case. of November 2011. At Greenville, NC #26 10
]]>
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.
