Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Poole

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia,

September 30, 2019

TITUS JONES, Plaintiff,



         Before 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 each motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. The Property

         According 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 4.)

         At the 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.

         B. Procedural History and the Superior Court Litigation

         On 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.)


         Defendants Dozier and Poole move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. The Court addresses each in turn.

         A. Legal Standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

         In 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).

         As for 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)).

         B. Defendant Dozier's Motio ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.