United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court upon defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim (DE 15). Plaintiff responded in opposition, and also
has filed a motion to compel compliance with subpoena for
documents (DE 29). In this posture, the issues raised are
ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, defendant's
motion is granted and plaintiff's motion is denied as
OF THE CASE
commenced this action by motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on April 4, 2019. Upon frivolity review, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court allowed plaintiff
to proceed with a claim for alienation of affection and
criminal conversation against defendant, an officer at
Riverside Regional Jail in Virginia. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, expenses, and interest.
filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), asserting lack of
personal jurisdiction over defendant as well as failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff
responded in opposition on August 30, 2019, relying upon an
email from plaintiff to defense counsel as well as documents
received from defense counsel. Plaintiff filed the instant
motion to compel compliance with subpoenas on September 30,
OF ALLEGED FACTS
facts alleged in the complaint may be summarized as follows.
Plaintiff is a resident of Greenville, North Carolina.
Defendant is an officer at Riverside Regional Jail in North
Prince George, Virginia (hereinafter, the
“jail”). Plaintiff alleges that on January 2,
2018, defendant began to sexually harass plaintiff's
spouse, Christina Rawls-Dolin (“Rawls-Dolin”),
who was employed as a mental health specialist at the jail.
Plaintiff alleges that this harassment developed into a
“dating/sexual relationship.” (Compl. (DE 1-1) at
On April 28, 2018, defendant's “actions towards
Rawls-Dolin resulted in plaintiff vacating the shared
residence.” (Id.). On September 1, 2018,
“the relationship was ended by Rawls-Dolin.”
(Id.). Defendant's ongoing harassment towards
Rawls-Dolin had effect on plaintiff's family, “to
include having to maintain separate households.”
(Id.). According to the complaint, defendant
continues to sexually harass Rawls-Dolin through touching,
verbal communications, and stalking.
alleges that he has incurred damages in the amount of $75,
001 for mental anguish, emotional distress and loss of
enjoyment of life. He has incurred $20, 196 for expenses in
maintaining separate houses. Plaintiff alleges that jail
officers have allowed defendant to remain under their employ
with allegations of physical and verbal abuse towards staff,
contractors and inmates.
Standard of Review
12(b)(2) allows for dismissal of a claim for lack of personal
jurisdiction. “When a district court considers a
question of personal jurisdiction based on the contents of a
complaint and supporting affidavits, the plaintiff has the
burden of making a prima facie showing in support of its
assertion of jurisdiction.” Universal Leather, LLC
v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553, 558 (4th Cir. 2014). At
this stage, the court “must construe all relevant
pleading allegations in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable
inferences for the existence of jurisdiction.”
Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989);
see Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60
(4th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he district court must draw all
reasonable inferences arising from the proof, and resolve all
factual disputes, in the plaintiff's favor.”).
survive a motion to dismiss, ” under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In evaluating whether a
claim is stated, the “court accepts all well-pled facts
as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, ” but does not consider “legal
conclusions, elements of a cause of action, . . . bare
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[, ] . . .
unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or
arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v.
Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir.
2009) (citations omitted).