United States District Court, S.D. Georgia,
HALL, CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant
Poole's motion to dismiss (Doc. 4); (2) Defendant
Poole's second motion to dismiss (Doc. 5); (3) Plaintiff
Jones's motion for joinder (Doc. 11); Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12); (4) Defendant
Poole's amended motion to dismiss (Doc. 18); (5)
Plaintiff's motion to amend summons (Doc. 25); (6)
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant Poole's
amended motion to dismiss (Doc. 26); and (8) Defendant
Dozier's motion to dismiss (Doc. 30). The Court addresses
to Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, he purchased the
property in question out of foreclosure in August 2017.
(Compl., Doc. 1, at 3.) The present dispute appears to
involve ownership of real property upon which a mobile home
sits, various easements benefiting the mobile home, and
damage to the mobile home. (Id. at 3-6.) Plaintiff
contends the mobile home and real property are solely
accessible by way of an easement and a well located on
adjacent property supplies water to the home. (Id.
at 5.) Defendant Poole lived in the home prior to foreclosure
and Plaintiff's subsequent purchase. (Id. at 3.)
After Plaintiff assumed ownership, Defendant Poole lived in
the mobile home as Plaintiff's tenant. (Id.)
Defendant Poole later vacated the property. (Id. at
time Defendant Poole moved out, and at various times after,
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Poole caused serious harm to the
mobile home and surrounding areas. (Id.)
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts Defendant Poole improperly
removed light fixtures, broke windows, tampered with the
water well, and destroyed furniture forcing Plaintiff to call
the authorities numerous times. (Id. at 3, 4.)
Plaintiff filed the present action on November 28, 2018,
claiming: (1) trespass; (2) damage to real estate; (3) the
grant of an appurtenant easement as to the driveway; (4) the
grant of an implied easement by necessity as to the water
well and driveway; and (5) adverse possession of the property
where the mobile home is located.
Procedural History and the Superior Court Litigation
February 13, 2019, Defendant Poole, among other plaintiffs,
filed a petition to quiet title as to the property in the
Superior Court of Wilkes County, Georgia. (Doc. 6-1.) The
superior court judge then denied Plaintiff's motions to
dismiss and stay the superior court quiet title action
thereby permitting that action to proceed. (Exs. to PL's
Mot. to Stay State Order, Doc. 35-1, at 63-65.) In assorted
motions and filings, Defendant Poole asks the Court to stay
the present action pending resolution of the superior court
action. (Am. Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. 18, at 1; Resp. to
PL's Mot. for a Status Conference, Doc. 37, at 1-2.)
DEPENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Dozier and Poole move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.
The Court addresses each in turn.
Legal Standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974),
overruled on other grounds by Davis v. Scherer, 468
U.S. 183 (1984). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a ''short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief" to give the defendant fair notice of both the
claim and the supporting grounds. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007) (citation omitted).
The plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) . In evaluating a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept
all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and construe
all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Garfield v. NDC Health
Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006).
pro se plaintiffs, "a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). "Even though a pro se complaint should
be construed liberally, [it] still must state a claim upon
which the court can grant relief." Wilson v.
Vanalstine, No. 1:17-cv-615-WSD, 2017 WL 4349558, at *2
(N.D.Ga. Oct. 2, 2017) (quoting Griqsby v. Thomas,
506 F.Supp.2d 26, 28 (D.D.C. 2007)). Pro se
litigants are required to comply with procedural rules, and
"the court is not required to rewrite deficient
pleadings." Jacox v. Dep't of Def., 291
Fed.Appx. 318, 318 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing GJR Invs.,
Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998) (overruled on other grounds)).
Defendant Dozier's Motio ...