Respondents Brief — Edward Ronny Arnold, Petitioner v. Allstate Insurance Company

No. 25-57

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

EDWARD RONNY ARNOLD,

v.

Petitioner,

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit

BRIEF OF RESPONDENT

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Cyrus L. Booker

BOOKER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.

205 Powell Place

Suite 314

Brentwood, TN 37027

(615) 423-0389

CBooker@BookerLegal.com

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC ! Washington, DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Court should grant the Petition for

a Writ of Certiorari, where the Court of Appeals

affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the

Petitioner's claim for failure to state a claim, where

the Petitioner alleged "federal question" jurisdiction

but failed to allege facts establishing any "state action"

on the part of the Respondent, Allstate Insurance

Company, and now states "Questions Presented"

which seek to raise issues unrelated to the basis upon

which the Petitioners' claims were dismissed for

failure to state a claim.

i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The caption of the case in this Court contains the

names of all parties to these proceedings.1

1

The underlying claim relates to a three-car automobile accident

that occurred on October 23, 2019. The initial lawsuits filed in

Tennessee State Court named the at-fault driver, Deborah

Malchow (now deceased), and her underinsured/uninsured

motorist carrier, Allstate Insurance Company, as Defendants,

filed as Davidson County Circuit Case Nos. 19C-3007 and 20C2199, which claims remain pending in Tennessee State Court.

When the state court made procedural rulings which the

Petitioner felt were in error, the Petitioner filed a new state court

lawsuit, Davidson County Circuit Court Case No. 22C-2097. When

the new state court lawsuit was dismissed, Petitioner filed a new

lawsuit in Federal Court, MDTN Case No. 3:23-cv- 1244, alleging

"federal question" jurisdiction seeking to have the Federal District

Court and now the US Supreme Court overturn rulings by the

state court on procedural and discovery issues. Each time a

Federal Court dismissed the Petitioner's claims for lack of "federal

question" jurisdiction, the Petition filed new Federal Court

lawsuits, MDTN Case Nos. 3:23-cv-1374, 3:24-cv-720, and then

3:24- cv-943. Each of these lawsuits relate to the same 3-car

automobile accident that occurred on October 23, 2019, and each

of these lawsuits have been dismissed at the Federal District

Court level, and are currently pending as US Supreme Court Case

No. 25-57 and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 25-5250, 255292, and 25-5390.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

I.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . 1

II.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

IV. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

V.

A.

Summary of Relevant Facts . . . . . . . . . . 3

B.

The District Court Correctly Dismissed

the Complaint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C.

Additional Grounds Exists for Dismissal

of the Complaint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Lindke v. Freed,

601 U.S. 187 (2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,

457 U.S. 922 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Nugent v. Spectrum Juvenile Justice Servs.,

72 F.4th 135 (6th Cir. 2023). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Revis v. Meldrum,

489 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

AND STATUTES

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14 . . . . . 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

28 U.S.C. § 1331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

28 U.S.C. § 1441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3, 4, 5

iv

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION2

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an

Order affirming the District Court's dismissal of the

Petitioner's claims on March 21, 2025, followed by a

mandate issued on April 14, 2025. Petitioner timely

filed his petition for writ of certiorari.

Relating to subject matter jurisdiction, Petitioner

alleges "federal question" jurisdiction under the United

States Constitution Amendment XIV and pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Petitioner further alleges:

The district court had subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because this case was moved to federal court

by plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and

Plaintiffs' claims arise under federal law.

(Appellant Brief, Statement of Jurisdiction, p. 3). This

is an erroneous assertion by Appellant/Plaintiff. This

lawsuit was filed in federal court as an original

lawsuit, and was not "moved to federal court by

plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441." (See,

Complaint, RE 1, Page ID## 1-11). None of the three

"Questions Presented" by the Petitioner raises any

"federal question."

2

Citations to the record on appeal are stated herein as

"Name/Description of Document, RE___, Page ID #___".

1

In summary, Petitioner alleges "federal question"

jurisdiction. As explained in greater detail below, the

Complaint filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant did not raise

any "federal question" and was properly dismissed by

the District Court and that dismissal was properly

affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner filed a Complaint for a Civil Case ("the

Complaint") on November 27, 2023, alleging "Federal

Question" jurisdiction, based on allegations that the

Defendant/Appellee violated U.S. Const. amend. XIV,

§ 1. (Complaint, RE 1, Page ID ##1-11). On January

17, 2024, the Defendant/Appellee filed a Motion to

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or Alternatively

for Summary Judgment. (Motion to Dismiss, RE 13,

Page ID ##93-96).

On April 4, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation, recommending that the

Motion to Dismiss be denied but that the Complaint be

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction based on Rooker-Feldman. (Report and

Recommendation, RE 15, Page ID ##166-178). On July

10, 2024, the District Court issued an Order ("Final

Order") rejecting the recommendations contained in

the Report and Recommendation, and instead granting

the Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Complaint

fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

(Final Order, RE 22, Page ID #249).

On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of

2

Appeal relating to the Final Order. (Notice of Appeal,

RE 25, Page ID #259).

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Plaintiff/Appellant is seeking to have a Federal

Court review and overturn certain State Court rulings

relating to procedural and discovery issues. The

District Court granted the Defendant/Appellee's

motion to dismiss, finding that the

Plaintiff/Appellant's Complaint failed to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted due to the failure to

allege a "federal question." The District Court properly

found that the statutory requirement of action "under

color of law" or "state action", prerequisites for a claim

under the Fourteenth Amendment and a claim under

§ 1983, have not been satisfied. Furthermore, said

issues having already been litigated in State Court,

and affirmed on appeal by the State Court of Appeals,

are precluded from being relitigated in Federal Court.

IV. ARGUMENT

A.

Summary of Relevant Facts.

The Complaint alleges that during the course of

State Court proceedings, the State Court committed

various errors. The Complaint alleges "that the

Defendant/Appellee was granted a motion to include

documents/affidavits that were not available to

Plaintiff/Appellant". (Complaint, RE 1, Page ID #5).

The Complaint alleges that the State Court "granted

the Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, six (6)

3

protective orders preventing the deposition by notice of

deposition, deposition by subpoena, subpoena to court

of Allstate Insurance claim agents who had contact

with the policy holder .... " (Complaint, RE 1, Page ID

#6). The Complaint alleges that on August 18, 2023,

the Plaintiff/Appellant filed an appeal to the

Tennessee Court of Appeals relating to these issues,

docketed as Case No. M2023-01201-COA-R3-CV.

(Complaint, RE 1, Page ID #7). The Complaint alleges

that on September 11, 2023 the Tennessee Court of

Appeals dismissed the appeal. (Id.) The Complaint

alleges that on November 20, 2023, the Tennessee

Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff/Appellant's

application for permission to appeal. (Id.).

The Complaint alleges "Federal Question"

jurisdiction, seeking review by the Federal District

Court of the various State Court orders. (See

Complaint, RE 1, Page ID #3).

B.

The District Court Correctly Dismissed the

Complaint.

Plaintiff/Appellant alleges "Federal Question"

jurisdiction, alleging a violation of "U.S. Const. amend

XIV, § 1", and specifically 42 USC § 1983 which

provides a cause of action against "[e]very person who,

under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom, or usage, of any State" deprives someone of a

federal constitutional or statutory right. "As its text

makes clear, this provision protects against acts

attributable to a State, not those of a private person."

Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 194-95 (2024). "This

4

limit tracks that of the Fourteenth Amendment, which

obligates States to honor the constitutional rights

that§ 1983 protects." (Id.). "The statutory requirement

of action 'under color of state law' and the 'state action'

requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment are

identical." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922,

929 (1982).

The District Court correctly stated the applicable

law as follows:

The acts of a private party may be deemed

state action only if the "conduct causing the

deprivation of a federal right may be fairly

attributable to the state." Revis v. Meldrum,

489 F.3d 273, 289 (6th Cir. 2007)(quoting

Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937). This determination

involves a two-part inquiry. "First, the

deprivation in question must be caused by

the exercise of some right or privilege

created by the State or by a rule of conduct

imposed by the state or by a person for

whom the State is responsible." Id. (quoting

Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937). And second, "the

party charged with the deprivation must be

a person who may fairly be said to be a state

actor." Id. (quoting Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937).

The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading

facts that would establish that the defendant

was a "state actor." See Nugent v. Spectrum

Juvenile Justice Servs., 72 F.4th 135, 140

(6th Cir. 2023).

5

(District Court Memorandum, RE 21, Page ID #246).

In this case, Plaintiff/Appellant has not alleged

facts that would suggest that Defendant/Appellee was

a state actor, either as Plaintiff/Appellant's insurer or

as a litigant in state court, under any of the three tests

articulated by this Court for determining whether a

private party may be treated as a state actor.

Plaintiff/Appellant has not alleged that

Defendant/Appellee exercised powers that are

"traditionally exclusively reserved to the state," for

purposes of the "public function" test.

Plaintiff/Appellant does not allege that the state

exercised coercive power of any kind over Allstate, for

purposes of the "state compulsion" test. Furthermore,

Plaintiff/Appellant does not allege that there is any

type of "close nexus" or "pervasive entwinement"

between Defendant/Appellee and the state of

Tennessee that would warrant considering

Defendant/Appellee's actions to be those of the state.

C.

Additional Grounds Exist For Dismissal of

the Complaint.

As the District Court noted "there are many other

doctrines that would likely apply here, including the

law of preclusion." (Memorandum, RE 21, Page ID

#245). As the Plaintiff/Appellant notes in the

Complaint, the issues sought to be litigated in Federal

Court by the Plaintiff/Appellant have already been

fully litigated in the State Court.

The State Trial Court made certain rulings

6

relating to discovery and procedural matters. The

Plaintiff/Appellant appealed those rulings to the

Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the Trial Court

rulings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The

Plaintiff/Appellant sought permission to appeal the

Court of Appeals ruling to the Tennessee Supreme

Court, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the

Plaintiff/Appellants application for permission to

appeal. Having fully litigated these issues in State

Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant may not now relitigate

those same issues in Federal Court. Therefore, the

District Court properly dismissed the Complaint.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the

Plaintiff/Appellant's appeal should be dismissed.

Defendant/Appellee hereby requests that this Court

deny the Petitioner's request for a writ of certiorari,

and that all costs relating to this appeal be taxed to

Petitioner.

Respectfully submitted,

BOOKER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.

August 14, 2025

By: /s/ Cyrus L. Booker

Cyrus L. Booker, No. 010747

205 Powell Place, Suite 314

Brentwood, TN 37027

(615) 423-0389

(615) 301-6500 (fax)

CBooker@BookerLegal.com

7