PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

SHEILA OWENS-COLLINS                           §

Plaintiff,                                                  §

§

vs.                                                             §     CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-03623

§

JUDGE MICHAEL NEWMAN,                     §

Individually and in his Official Capacity as    §

Judge, Probate Court #2 of Harris County,    §

Texas                                                                   §     JURY DEMAND

Defendant.                                              §

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(6), FED. R. CIV. P.

This Response and Brief is filed by Plaintiff in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons outlined below, Defendant’s Motion should be denied.

  1. STANDARD OF REVIEW
  2. Defendant presents arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.)
  3. Dismissal under rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or does not allege facts that, when taken as a whole, raise the claim for relief above mere speculation. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly¸ 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007); Coleman v Md. Ct. of App., 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010). As with standing, the court will assume all factual allegations are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Edwards v City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). When, as here, a 12(b)(6) motion is used to test the sufficiency of the complaint in a civil rights case, the court will be “especially solicitous of the harms alleged.” Id.
  1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
  2. This is a suit for estate trafficking against Judge Michael Newman in his capacity as probate judge. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant actively participated and abetted in the estate trafficking of the Estate of Hattie B. Owens, by repeatedly channeling money out of the estate into the coffers of the Court, the State of Texas and the Court Appointed Attorneys.
  3. Defendant also denied Plaintiff due process and subjected her to uncivil courtroom behavior by an appointed attorney, and not allowing evidence to be entered that would ensure the appropriate administration of justice, and abuse of power by declaring Plaintiff to be “not suitable” to serve as the 1st in line Executor of the last will and testament because of “family rancor”, and instead indicated that a third party administrator would be assigned which further depletes the estate.
  4. This was done in spite of case law and a Texas Supreme Court ruling that family discord is insufficient to not comply with the Testator’s wish.
  1. ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff States Valid Claims under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)

  • Defendant’s rulings from the guardianship matter violated protected rights of Plaintiff’s mother under the Americans with Disabilities Act and subsequently were in violation of Texas Law concerning the probate of Plaintiff’s mother’s estate.
  • Defendant denied Plaintiff due process by refusing to allow testimony on the specific lack of performance of job responsibility that was attached to the contest of the fee schedule.
  • During the trial proceedings, Defendant failed to ensure civility in the courtroom in a manner that wasn’t discriminatory by allowing counsels and disgruntled family members to spew defamatory remarks when court sessions were going on.
  • Defendant removed Plaintiff as executor of the will because of family discord, in total disregard of a Supreme Court ruling that family discord is insufficient to change the wishes of a testator.

REASONS WHEREFORE, this case should proceed.

Respectfully submitted on Insert Date.

Sheila Owens-Collins

______________________________

Insert Address

Insert State and Zip code

Insert Phone Number

Insert Email

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent on the (Date) day of (Month) (Year) by regular U.S. mail, by facsimile, or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following parties or attorneys of record:

            (Name of Defendant’s Attorney), Attorney at Law

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )