United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
AMEND AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
F. Cox United States District Court Judge.
filed a pro se complaint against an instructor at
Oakland Community College. Defendant moved to dismiss.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint.
However, instead of correcting her complaint's alleged
deficiencies, Plaintiff's motion to amend only seeks to
add an additional state-law claim and to add the College as a
reasons below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to
amend and grant Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
Valerie Goemaere's complaint is hard to follow. She
appears to allege that Dr. Kathy Tiell, an instructor at
Oakland Community College, is somehow related to a
decade-long campaign to terrorize her. The following passage
is Goemaere's factual statement of her claim:
After hearing the name “Kathy Tiell” in class on
numerous occasions I became frightened and place a shield up
or became guarded. After 10 years this woman could not
possibly want to endanger me again. And so it was. . . I was
videotaped and placed on social media while in class without
consent. I reported this illegal act.
A new semester. . . it's best that I Google my name
(after getting a hint). My information was on the screen.
January 22nd footprints up my driveway to my vehicle
driverside with urine drops. My employer/employees began a
chant of “Hey Val.” Known and unknown. This
employer will not discriminate, but they have been
manipulated by Kathy Tiell to make something of me that is
not true. At work some reason for me to cause a staff alert.
By law Kathy Tiell has no reason or cause to contact any of
my employers. I have been harmed for approximately 10 years
due to her aggregious [sic] acts. I have not provided any
harm to myself nor others. I've returned to complete my
degree, not for Kathy Tiell to continue from approximately to
use people for her agenda to mae me fall by forcing
ideologies of racism, age discrimination (from Debbie), and
defamation. Kathy Tiell is presenting my or some form of data
or information as to dehumanize me.
My employer may or may not be aware of Kathy Teill's long
lived diabolical methods of causing fear distrust, and
coercion towards me. This only includes Kathy Tiell and those
located with intent and knowledge of the cause to harm,
retaliate, discriminate, hold color of law, and charge funds
from the state or federal Government for approximately 10
years (see previous case) to use methods as to experiment and
diagnose this plaintiff and familial result to the present.
Only when I registered for classes/courses at Oakland
Community College -Auburn Hills in the Fall 2018 did Kathy
Tiell organized her effort to complete a conscious drive to
harm me further. Kathy Tiell uses her title to characterize
an interest in gathering others to commit these crimes. With
this as being known; she continues to use the campus for time
and to victimize students as I witnessed approximately 10
years ago. These are major violations. She continues aware
that her license are being jeopardized.
Kathy Tiell is speaking and showing people she chooses my
finances, personal data, untrue statements, some type of
video, and advising a group or individuals to use words and
character that it would result in my demise to be the best
person I can be.
(ECF No. 1, PageID 5-7).
invokes this Court's federal-question jurisdiction and
brings eleven “claims:” (1) harassment; (2)
retaliation; (3) “No Tolerance” hate crime; (4)
illegal surveillance, use of electronic and video; (5)
Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(“FERPA”); (6) Titles II and VII; (7) conspiracy;
(8) privacy; (9) Equal Access to Justice Act in Agency; (10)
malpractice; (11) “color of law;” (12) Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(“HIPPA”). (ECF No. 1, PageID 4). She seeks
“[t]o have Kathy Teill['s] license removed, ”
equitable relief, and $15 million for “reputation,
abilities, exploit and exposure of PII and unauthorized
information not prescribed to the public  [l]ivelihood,
[and] educational strengths.” (ECF No. 1, PageID 8).
September 9, 2019, Tiell moved to dismiss Goemaere's
complaint, arguing that she had failed to plead a sufficient
factual or legal basis for her claims. (ECF No. 16). Goemaere
responded, citing four exhibits, which were not attached.
(ECF No. 21). The following passage is the entirety of
Goemaere's substantive response:
Introduction and Statement of Facts
Plaintiff Valerie Goemaere, pro se, responds to
Defendant's Motion to dismiss and/or compel arbitration
1. This is a Hate Crimes and Retaliation case form my
enrollment at Oakland Community ...