C. L. v. Wilson et al, No. 1:2019cv00792 - Document 63 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES defendant Jerrod S. Grimes' 9 motion/plea in abatement to the summons. If defendant Grimes wishes to file a motion to dismiss that makes a cognizable legal claim, he may do so. The court GRANTS pl aintiff's 17 motion to strike Grimes' 9 motion; DENIES Grimes' 22 motion for show cause; and GRANTS the United States' 27 motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees against the United States. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/9/2020. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (arb)

Download PDF
C. L. v. Wilson et al Doc. 63 Case 1:19-cv-00792 Document 63 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 391 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD C.L., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-00792 DAVID R. WILSON, FPC Alderson; et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court are defendant Jerrod S. Grimes’ (“Grimes”) Plea in Abatement to the Summons, (ECF No. 9), plaintiff’s motion to strike Grimes’ motion, (ECF No. 17), Grimes’ motion for show cause, (ECF No. 22), and defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees asserted against the United States. (ECF No. 27.) A. Grimes’ Plea in Abatement, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, and Grimes’ Motion for Show Cause In defendant Grimes’ Plea in Abatement, he appears to argue that plaintiff does not have standing to sue him because he is insolvent and he is, somehow, a separate entity from the defendant Grimes being sued (i.e. himself). (See ECF No. 9.) Defendant Grimes is representing himself pro se. filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” “A document Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00792 Document 63 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 392 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, even liberally construing Grimes’ filing, the court cannot find any legitimate legal ground to support his motion. If defendant Grimes wishes to file a motion to dismiss that makes a cognizable legal claim, he may do so. As for the instant motion, Grimes’ motion, (ECF No. 9), is hereby DENIED, and plaintiff’s motion to strike, (ECF No. 17), is GRANTED. Grimes’ motion for show cause, (ECF No. 22), which seeks a court order requiring plaintiff to show why the plea in abatement should not be granted, is likewise DENIED. B. United States’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant United States asks the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees against the United States because such claims are barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). (ECF No. 27.) States’ motion. Plaintiff does not oppose the United (See ECF No. 30.) the United States’ motion. Therefore, the court GRANTS See Joe v. United States, 772 F.2d 1535, 1536–37 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars an award of attorneys’ fees against the United States unless there is express statutory authorization . . . The FTCA does not expressly provide for attorneys’ fees against the United States.”). 2 Case 1:19-cv-00792 Document 63 Filed 09/09/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 393 The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2020. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 3

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.