Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00112/USCOURTS-ared-4_15-cv-00112-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sherra Spurgers King
Defendant
James Weldon King
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Ann Spurgers
Defendant
Barry Wayne Spurgers
Defendant
USA
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES WELDON KING PLAINTIFF

v. NO. 4:15-cv-00112 JM/PSH

SHERRA SPURGERS KING, BARRY WAYNE SPURGERS, DEFENDANTS

ELIZABETH ANN SPURGERS, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United

States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections to all or part

of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the

factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this

Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may

waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

-1-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 15
RECOMMENDATION

INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff James Weldon King commenced the case at bar by filing

a pro se complaint in Phillips County, Arkansas, Circuit Court. The case was subsequently

removed to federal court where defendants Sherra Spurgers King, Barry Wayne Spurgers,

and Elizabeth Ann Spurgers (“Spurgers defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss. See

Document 21.1 Because the defendants filed their motion, in part, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and accompanied the motion with exhibits that were not

excluded, the motion was construed as one for summary judgment pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The parties were given an opportunity to submit materials in

support of, and in opposition to, the motion for summary judgment, and the deadline for

doing so has now passed. After reviewing the parties’ pleadings and exhibits, the

undersigned recommends that the defendants’ motion be granted.2

 James Weldon King’s

complaint should be dismissed and judgment entered for all of the defendants.3

1

United State District Judge James M. Moody, Jr., referred the case to the undersigned for

recommended disposition. See Document 25.

2

Rule 56(a) provides, in part, that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.”

3

In addition to joining the Spurgers defendants, James Weldon King also joined Gerald Wayne

Spurgers, Carrie Land, and Ward Seal, all of whom were agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(“FBI”). The United States of America (“USA”) was substituted for the FBI agents, see Document 9, and the

claims against the USA were dismissed without prejudice because James Weldon King failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies, see Document 19. Because the USA has been now been dismissed, the undersigned

will devote no attention to the claims made against Gerald Wayne Spurgers, Carrie Land, and Ward Seal.

-2-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 15
FACTS. The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ pleadings and exhibits and finds

the facts to be as follows:

1. James Weldon King and Sherra Spurgers King were married in 1986, and it was

through the marriage that James Weldon King became acquainted with Sherra Spurgers

King’s father, Barry Wayne Spurgers; her mother, Elizabeth Ann Spurgers; and Sherra

Spurgers King’s brother, Gerald Wayne Spurgers. See Document 2 at 2.

2. Gerald Wayne Spurgers came to be employed as an agent with the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in 1996. See Document 2 at 2-3.

3. Sherra Spurgers King, Gerald Wayne Spurgers, and other members of her

extended family knew, or eventually learned, that James Weldon King was a convicted

felon who possessed firearms, oftentimes obtaining firearms from members of Sherra

Spurgers King’s extended family. See Document 2 at 3-5.

4. In 2009, the marriage between James Weldon King and Sherra Spurgers King

ended in divorce. See Document 2 at 5.

5. As a part of the divorce, James Weldon King was given visitation rights with the

daughter he shared with Sherra Spurgers King. See Document 2 at 5-6.

6. James Weldon King later requested and obtained a modification of those

visitation rights. See Document 2 at 6.

7. At some point, James Weldon King was confronted by Sherra Spurgers King and

members of her extended family and allegedly threatened with retaliation for his efforts

in obtaining a modification of his visitation rights. See Document 2 at 6-7.

-3-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 15
8. James Weldon King was allegedly told that Gerald Wayne Spurgers would use

his position as an FBI agent to punish James Weldon King. See Document 2 at 6-7.

9. At some point, the FBI began investigating James Weldon King; during the

course of the investigation, FBI agents Carrie Land and Ward Seal learned from local law

enforcement officers that James Weldon King was a felon who had firearms in his

possession. See Document 2 at 7-8; Document 30 at 2. 

10. Carrie Land requested and obtained a warrant from United States Magistrate

Judge Joe Volpe to search James Weldon King’s residence. See Document 2 at 8.

11. Law enforcement officials executed the warrant, and the search of James

Weldon King’s residence uncovered fifty-eight firearms. See Document 2 at 8; Document

30 at 2.

12. James Weldon King was arrested and charged by federal criminal complaint

with being a felon in possession of a firearm. See Document 2 at 8; Document 30 at 2.

13. James Weldon King was subsequently indicted in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in case number 4:13-cr-00036 BRW with one

count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of being in possession of

an unregistered firearm. See Document 2 at 9. See also USA v. King, 4:13-cr-00036 BRW.

14. The United States of America opposed James Weldon King’s pre-trial release,

which led to a series of pleadings and hearings on that question. See Document 2 at 9-11.

15. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Ray eventually determined that James

Weldon King should be detained pending trial. See Document 2 at 10.

-4-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 15
16. The United States of America and James Weldon King eventually entered into

a plea agreement in which he admitted to being a felon, admitted to possessing an

unregistered firearm, and agreed to plead guilty to one count of possessing an

unregistered firearm. See Document 2 at 11; Document 30 at 2-3.

17. James Weldon King pleaded guilty in accordance with the terms of the plea

agreement, and United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson sentenced James Weldon

King in 2014 to forty-six months imprisonment. See Document 2 at 12.

PLEADINGS. James Weldon King commenced this case by filing a complaint in

which he advanced the following three state law claims: abuse of process, outrage, and

civil conspiracy. In the abuse of process claim, he alleged that the Spurgers defendants

“devised a scheme to destroy the relationship between [James Weldon King] and his

daughter” and used the judicial process to “incriminate, convict, and imprison [him].”

See Document 2 at 7. In the outrage claim, he alleged that the Spurgers defendants

“employed the power of the FBI to estrange [him] from his daughter for vindictive

purposes.” See Document 2 at 13. In the civil conspiracy claim, James Weldon King

alleged that the Spurgers defendants conspired to abuse the judicial process and commit

outrageous acts in order to damage his relationship with his daughter. As an example of

the civil conspiracy, he alleged that the Spurgers defendants invoked Gerald Wayne

Spurgers’ name and position as the “instrument [they] would use to destroy [James

Weldon King’s] relationship with his daughter” and ensure that James Weldon King never

saw his daughter again. See Document 2 at 14.

-5-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 5 of 15
The Spurgers defendants responded to James Weldon King’s complaint by filing the

pending motion. In the motion, they first maintained that James Weldon King failed to

serve them with a summons and therefore failed to comply with the requirements for

proper service of process. Second, they maintained that James Weldon King failed to

state a claim for relief.

James Weldon King filed a response to the Spurgers defendants’ motion in which

he maintained that he had properly served them with a summons and copy of the

complaint. It was therefore his position that he had complied with the requirements for

proper service of process. James Weldon King additionally maintained that United States

District Judge James M. Moody, Jr., had previously denied motions to dismiss filed by the

Spurgers defendants, and the motion at bar was nothing more than an attempt to relitigate issues that Judge Moody had already addressed and resolved in James Weldon

King’s favor.

It is not clear whether James Weldon King properly served the Spurgers defendants

with a summons and copy of the complaint. Rather than wrestle with that question, the

undersigned will bypass it and address the Spurgers defendants’ challenge to the

evidence supporting James Weldon King’s claims.

ANALYSIS. At the outset, two points are in order. First, the undersigned recognizes

that James Weldon King is proceeding without the assistance of counsel. As a result, his

pro se pleadings have been liberally construed. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).

Second, the undersigned is not persuaded that the Spurgers defendants’ motion

-6-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 6 of 15
should be denied simply because it is, or may be, a re-filing of their previously denied

motions to dismiss. It is true that the defendants filed motions to dismiss before this case

was removed to federal court, see Documents 3, 4, 18, and Judge Moody denied the

motions, see Document 19. It does not appear, though, that he foreclosed their filing of

a second motion.

I. ABUSE OF PROCESS. James Weldon King’s first claim is an abuse of process

claim. In the State of Arkansas, the tort of abuse of process requires the plaintiff to

prove the following elements: “(1) a legal procedure set in motion in proper form, even

with probable cause and ultimate success; (2) the procedure is perverted to accomplish

an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed; and (3) a willful act is perpetrated in

the use of process which is not proper in the regular course of the proceeding.” See

National Bank of Arkansas v. River Crossing Partners, LLC, 2011 Ark. 475, 385 S.W.3d 754,

761 (2011). In that case, the Arkansas Supreme Court also observed the following:

... The test of abuse of process is whether a judicial process is used to

extort or coerce. Routh Wrecker Serv., Inc. v. Washington, 355 Ark. 232,

980 S.W.2d 240 (1998). The key to the tort is the improper use of process

after its issuance to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not

designed. Harmon v. Carco Carriage Corp., 320 Ark. 322, 895 S.W.2d 938

(1995). Thus, it is the purpose for which the process is used, once issued,

that is important in reaching a conclusion. Sundeen v. Kroger, 355 Ark. 138,

133 S.W.3d 393 (2003). Abuse of process is a narrow tort. Union Nat’l Bank

of Little Rock v. Kutait, 312 Ark. 14, 846 S.W.2d 652 (1993).

See Id. at 761-762.

Applying the foregoing law to the facts of this case, the undersigned begins by

-7-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 7 of 15
finding that the Spurgers defendants did not initiate, nor were they involved in, the legal

process resulting in James Weldon King’s arrest in 4:13-cr-00036. Sherra Spurgers King’s

unrebutted affidavit contains the following representations, all of which the undersigned

accepts as true:

Before January 20, 2013, [i.e., the day of James Weldon King’s

arrest in 4:13-cr-00036] I had not spoken with the FBI agents nor any local

law enforcement officials about [James Weldon King] having guns in his

home.

I had no conversations with my parents or anyone else about having

any law enforcement agency arrest[] [James Weldon King] for possession

of firearms. [I] never heard my parents, Barry [Wayne] Spurgers and

Elizabeth [Ann] Spurgers, have any conversation about having James

Weldon King arrested for possession of firearms.

I never filed an affidavit for [a] warrant for arrest nor even made

complaint to any authority [about] James Weldon King related to his

possession of firearms.

There was nothing I did that led to his arrest.

See Document 21, Affidavit of Sherra Spurgers King at 1-2. Barry Wayne Spurgers and

Elizabeth Ann Spurgers filed unrebutted affidavits containing similar representations.4

Abuse of process does not turn on, though, who initiated the legal process.

4

In Barry Wayne Spurgers’ affidavit, he represents that he had no involvement in James Weldon

King’s arrest in 4:13-cr-00036, never spoke with the FBI agents who arrested him, never took any steps to

have him arrested, and never had any conversations about having him arrested. See Document 21, Affidavit

of Barry Wayne Spurgers. In Elizabeth Ann Spurgers’ affidavit, she represents that she did not know James

Weldon King was a felon who possessed firearms, never acted to have him arrested, and never discussed

having him arrested with anyone. See Document 21, Affidavit of Elizabeth Ann Spurgers. The Spurgers

defendants appear to suggest that James Weldon King’s false representation on a political practice pledge

led to his arrest in 4:13-cr-00036, but there is no evidence to substantiate that suggestion. 

-8-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 8 of 15
Instead, the tort turns, in part, on the existence of an ulterior purpose. In Peterson v.

Worthen Bank and Trust Company, 296 Ark. 201, 753 S.W.2d 278, 279 (1988), the

Arkansas Supreme Court noted the following with respect to that element:

... The improper purpose usually takes the form of coercion to obtain a

collateral advantage, not properly involved in the proceeding itself, such

as the surrender of property or the payment of money, by the use of the

process as a threat or a club. There is, in other words, a form of extortion,

and it is what is done in the course of negotiations, rather than the

issuance of any formal use of the process itself, which constitutes the tort.

See Peterson v. Worthen Bank and Trust Company, 296 Ark. 201, 753 S.W.2d 278, 279

(1988) (internal quotations omitted).

In Routh Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Washington, 335 Ark. 232, 980 S.W.2d 240

(1998), the Arkansas Supreme Court applied the “ulterior purpose” element. In that case,

Washington stopped payment on a check used to purchase an automobile on Routh’s lot.

The following then occurred:

... Ronald Routh ... contacted the prosecuting attorney's office and swore

out an affidavit for a warrant of arrest for Washington. He averred in the

affidavit that Washington had stopped payment on the check but had not

returned [the automobile] to the premises nor the documentation for sale.

... After [Washington’s] arrest, ... Washington's father called Routh. Routh

told him that all he wanted was his money and that he would drop the

charges if he was paid. Washington advised his father not to pay the

[purchase price]. Immediately after the arrest, Washington's attorney

contacted Routh and told him that the car was still on the lot, which Routh

verified. Routh explained to the attorney that storage charges on the

vehicle had accrued and should be paid.

Routh did not drop the charges. On September 19, 1994, at the

probable cause hearing in municipal court, the municipal judge found

-9-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 9 of 15
probable cause for a theft arrest based on Routh's testimony that

Washington was given the car keys and legal documents and then stopped

payment on the check. The case was certified to circuit court, where

charges were not filed by the prosecuting attorney.

See Id. at 242. Washington filed an abuse of process claim against Routh and prevailed.

Routh appealed, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The appellate court held that

“... after the arrest warrant, Routh allowed the case to proceed to a hearing in municipal

court for the coercive purpose of collecting [the purchase price],” and there was enough

evidence to support a judgment in Washington’s favor. See Id. at 244.

James Weldon King alleges that the Spurgers defendants had ulterior purposes,

i.e., to retaliate against James Weldon King for obtaining a modification of his visitation

rights with his daughter and to destroy his relationship with his daughter. The evidence

of their alleged ulterior purposes is scant. Save James Weldon King’s boldface allegation,

there is no evidence they had such purposes.

Assuming, arguendo, that the Spurgers defendants had ulterior purposes, it is not

clear how accomplishing those purposes would have given them a “collateral advantage.”

It was for the state courts of Arkansas to decide James Weldon King’s visitation rights,

and that question had been decided. The legal process in 4:13-cr-00036 could not change

that determination. He was a felon when the visitation determination was made, and his

arrest in 4:13-cr-00036 did nothing to change that fact. It is also difficult to see how his

arrest would destroy his relationship with his daughter.

Assuming, arguendo, that James Weldon King can satisfy the “ulterior purpose”

-10-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 10 of 15
element, he cannot show that the Spurgers defendants committed a willful act to

accomplish those purposes. James Weldon King’s pleadings are long on speculation and

conjecture, but there is no evidence the Spurgers defendants took any action, or failed

to take an action they should have taken, to accomplish their purposes of retaliating

against James Weldon King for obtaining a modification of his visitation rights with his

daughter and destroying his relationship with her. For instance, there is no evidence that

the Spurgers defendants made false representations in 4:13-cr-00036, see Harmon v.

Carco Carriage Corporation, 320 Ark. 322, 895 S.W.2d 938 (1995) (party failed to disclose

all the facts that were known to her and allowed case to proceed), or took any action

after he was arrested, such as demanding that he agree to a revision of the visitation

order or refrain from seeing his daughter, see Smith v. Nelson, 255 Ark. 641, 501 S.W.2d

769 (1973) (no action taken subsequent to filing of charges; thus, no extortion or

coercion).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, James Weldon King maintains that the Spurgers

defendants committed a willful act by “using” the FBI. He would have the undersigned

infer that because Gerald Wayne Spurgers was an agent with the FBI and James Weldon

King was arrested by agents with the FBI, the Spurgers defendants must have been the

driving force behind the arrest. James Weldon King has failed, though, to offer any

support for his assertion, and the undersigned is not willing to embrace the inference he

proposes.

II. OUTRAGE. James Weldon King’s second claim is an outrage claim. In the State

-11-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 11 of 15
of Arkansas, the tort of outrage requires the plaintiff to prove the following elements:

... (1) the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should

have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2)

the conduct was extreme and outrageous, was beyond all possible bounds

of decency, and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the

actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff’s distress; and (4)

the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was so severe that no

reasonable person could be expected to endure it. ...

See Kiersey v. Jeffrey, 369 Ark. 220, 253 S.W.3d 438, 441 (2007) (internal quotations

omitted). Arkansas courts give a narrow view to the tort and require “clear-cut proof to

establish the elements in outrage cases.” See Id. “Merely describing the conduct as

outrageous does not make it so.” See Id.

Applying the foregoing law to the facts of this case, the undersigned begins by

finding that the Spurgers defendants did not intend to inflict emotional distress on James

Weldon King nor know, or should have known, that emotional distress was the likely

result of their conduct. The undersigned so finds for one reason: there is no evidence

they took any action against him. There is no evidence they initiated, or were involved

in, the legal process resulting in his arrest in 4:13-cr-00036. There is no evidence they

made false representations in 4:13-cr-00036 or took any action after he was arrested,

such as demanding that he agree to a revision of the visitation order or refrain from

seeing his daughter. There is also no evidence they “used” the FBI to bring about his

arrest.

Assuming, arguendo, that the Spurgers defendants “used” the FBI to bring about

-12-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 12 of 15
James Weldon King’s arrest in 4:13-cr-00036, that their “use” of the FBI was extreme and

outrageous, and accepting that he suffered some measure of emotional distress as a

result of his arrest, there is no evidence the Spurgers defendants were the cause of his

distress. Instead, the cause of his distress was the fifty-eight firearms found during the

search of his residence, none of which he could legally possess. The firearms led to his

arrest, and there is no evidence the Spurgers defendants caused him to possess the

firearms.

Additionally, even if the undersigned assumes that the Spurgers defendants “used”

the FBI to cause James Weldon King’s arrest in 4:13-cr-00036, that their “use” of the FBI

was extreme and outrageous, that James Weldon King suffered some measure of

emotional distress as a result of his arrest, and that the Spurgers defendants were the

cause of his distress, the outrage claim still fails. James Weldon King has not alleged

emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

Specifically, he does not allege that the distress caused him any mental or physical

suffering, such as depression and/or anxiety, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, frequent

crying spells, or required any meaningful medical attention, such as counseling or

hospitalization. See Givens v. Hixson, 275 Ark. 370, 631 S.W.2d 263 (1982) (entry of

summary judgment for defendant on outrage claim affirmed despite evidence that

plaintiff was depressed, could not sleep or eat, lost weight, and required hospitalization

for a heart condition after the allegedly outrageous incident).

III. CIVIL CONSPIRACY. James Weldon King’s final claim is for civil conspiracy. In

-13-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 13 of 15
the State of Arkansas, the tort of civil conspiracy requires the plaintiff to prove the

following: “that two or more persons have combined to accomplish a purpose that is

unlawful or oppressive or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, oppressive

or immoral, but by unlawful, oppressive or immoral means, to the injury of another.” See

Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276, 436 S.W.3d 445, 455 (2014).

The tort may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence of an agreement between

the conspirators or by evidence of an understanding between them. See Seachange

International, Inc. v. Putterman, 79 Ark. App. 223, 86 S.W.3d 25 (Ark.Ct.App. 2002). “It

also may be inferred from actions of alleged conspirators, if it be shown that they

pursued the same unlawful object, each doing a part, so that their acts, although

apparently independent, are in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness

of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.” See Mason v. Funderburk, 247

Ark. 521, 446 S.W.2d 543, 548 (1969).

Applying the foregoing law to the facts of this case, there is no evidence that the

Spurgers defendants combined to accomplish a purpose that was unlawful or oppressive

or combined to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful, oppressive, or immoral means.

To the contrary, their unrebutted affidavits establish that they had took no actions, or

even discussed taking any actions, leading to James Weldon King’s arrest in 4:13-cr00036. Specifically, they did not speak with law enforcement officers about him

possessing firearms and did nothing that led to his arrest.

RECOMMENDATION. The pleadings and exhibits establish that there is no genuine

-14-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 14 of 15
issue of material fact, and the Spurgers defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. James Weldon King has failed to produce evidence in support of his claims of

abuse of process, outrage, and civil conspiracy. The undersigned recommends that the

Spurgers defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. James Weldon King’s

complaint against them should be dismissed with prejudice, and judgment should be

entered for all of the defendants.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2016.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-15-

Case 4:15-cv-00112-JM Document 31 Filed 01/26/16 Page 15 of 15