Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
On Monday 6/12, United States District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the lawsuit brought by former TNA and WWE developmental star Trenesha "Rhaka Khan" Biggers back in October 2022 in the Southern District of New York, claiming a conspiracy against her in relation to an ongoing Texas criminal case, listing, among others, as defendants: The State of Texas, The El Paso Child Protective Services, the FBI, The Las Cruces, New Mexico Police Department, The NYPD, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, New York ACS, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc., Shirley Police Department, Sigma Phi Epsilon, Suffolk County NY, The Rock, WWE personalities The Miz and Maryse, current Impact Wrestling star Heath Miller, WWE Hall of Famer Nikki Bella, the late Chris Benoit, former WWE talent Mark Jindrak, the now-defunct Panda Energy (which once owned TNA/Impact), Home Depot, the now-defunct Florida Championship Wrestling, Steve Keirn, The National Wrestling Alliance, NWA President Billy Corgan, the now-defunct Deep South Wrestling, Bank of America, basketball star Michael Jordan, several Universities, Jim Cornette, Mick Foley, New York City area energy company Con Edison and countless others.
The lawsuit alleged that the defendants all "conspired to kidnap plaintiff and her children."
Swain's dismissal reads:
Plaintiff Trenesha Biggers (“Biggers”), who is appearing pro se, brings this federal action against approximately 1,000 individuals and entities from various states. Regarding her claims that arose in New York State, she alleges that, in 2019, individuals removed her children when she was arrested.
By order dated February 27, 2023, the Court granted Biggers’ request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the following reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with 30 days’ leave to plead claims that arose in a county within the Southern District of New York. The Court also dismisses claims that arose outside of this District for improper venue, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), without prejudice to Biggers’ filing civil actions in the proper venues.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
BACKGROUND
This action arises from proceedings that primarily occurred, or are ongoing, in Suffolk and New York Counties, New York, as well as in El Paso County, Texas.
The following facts drawn from the complaint are specific to the allegations that arose in the State of New York.
In 2019, Biggers lived in New York with her two minor children.
1 She had full custody of Z.S. and an order of protection against Sims was presented to Esparza and Detective Vera by the Suffolk County Fugitive Squad. The protective order was provided to the El Paso authorities before Biggers was extradited from New York to El Paso. While Biggers was in custody, New York ACS failed to bring Biggers and the children before a Judge. The children were then kidnapped from Biggers, separated from one another, and taken to two different states. Biggers was not able to regain contact with her children.
. . .
On October 8th, 2019, the Shirley New York Precinct 7 Police [located in New York County]2 entered into Brighter Tomorrow’s domestic violence shelter and arrested Biggers. They sta[]ted they had a warrant for ‘interference with child custody’ and ‘aggravated kidnapping’ of Z.S. issued by El Paso, Texas
. . . .
Upon arriving to the station, the Suffolk County Fugitive Squad reviewed Biggers custody order and protective order. They contacted the El Paso County District Attorneys office to inform them of the order. According to the Suffolk County Fugitive Squad, El Paso instructed them to send Biggers to be extradited back to El Paso anyway.
Plaintiff does not state where in New York she resided, but she provides in her complaint a New York County address.
. . .
Once it was confirmed that Biggers was going to prison to await extradition to El Paso ACS Worker A met Biggers at the station. Biggers presented ACS worker A with the Protective Order and provided names and contact information on who he was to contact to pick up the Biggers’ daughters from the 7th Precinct
. . . .
After being booked into Riverhead Correctional Facility [located in Suffolk County], Biggers called ACS Worker A to ensure that her daughter had been given to the individual which she designated and that the protective order was honored. Upon making contact with the ACS Worker A informed Biggers that he contact Texas Child Protective Services and they instruction him to give Z.S. to Sims [in] spite of the protective orders, and give M.R. away to Xavier Fulton . . . [who] had no parental rights[.]
Biggers also alleges that events giving rise to her claims arose in Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and Pueblo County, Colorado, as well as in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois
As noted above, Biggers names nearly 1,000 Defendants, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Dona Ana County New Mexico Sheriff, Sigma Phi Epsilon, Eminem, Stockbridge Holdings, “The Bella Twins,” Florida Championship Wrestling Talent DOE 1-1000, the Reality of Wrestling, Walgreens, DHL, Ron Simmons, Chevy Dodge Chrysler, Victoria’s Secret, TJ Maxx, Booker T. Huffman, Jeff Jarrett, Penn State University, NFL, Illinois Central College, Hospital Doe 1-50, JEEP, Eric Adams, and Spike Lee. This list is a small sample of the Defendants Plaintiff sues, listed in 23 pages of the complaint.
DISCUSSION
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if it contains sufficient factual allegations to render the claim plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court need not accept, however, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.
The allegations suggest that (1) Biggers and her children were brought to the 7th Precinct in New York County, (2) she was arrested at that precinct and transferred to a Suffolk County jail, (3) an order of protection was issued by a Suffolk County court, and (4) employees of the Administration of Children’s Services (“ACS”) removed her children from her custody and ensured the transport of Z.S. to Z.S.’s father, and M.F to M.F’s father, in contradiction of Biggers’ requests. It is unclear, however, whether Plaintiff seeks to bring any claims arising from her arrest, or if she seeks only to challenge the decision to send her children to their respective fathers following her detention. It is also unclear whether she challenges any decision regarding her own parental rights, and if so, the status of those rights. Thus, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because Plaintiff does not provide a short and plain statement showing that she is entitled to relief.
The Court therefore dismisses the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8, but grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint stating facts in support of any claim that arose in New York County. To the extent she seeks to bring claims that arose in Suffolk County, as discussed below, this Court is not a proper venue for such claims. B. Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
Under Section 1391(c), a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be sued” resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2). Under Section 1391(b)(1), this District is not a proper venue because Biggers names several defendants who are not residents of New York State. Under Section 1391(b)(2), this District is not a proper venue for the claims that arose in Suffolk County, New York, or the claims that arose in El Paso County, Texas.
Ordinarily, if a plaintiff files a case in the wrong venue, the Court “shall dismiss [the action], or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court concludes that it would not be in the interests of justice to transfer Biggers’ claims to the Eastern District of New York, the proper venue for Biggers’ claims that arose in Suffolk County, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), or to the Western District of Texas, the proper venue for Biggers’s claims that in El Paso, Texas, see 28 U.S.C. 124(d), or, for that matter, to the proper districts for the events that occurred in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, Pueblo County, Colorado, and Cook County, Illinois.5 Biggers sues hundreds of defendants, nearly all of whom she does not state claims against. As noted above, the complaint does not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Biggers does not provide a short and plain statement showing that she is entitled to relief from the named defendants.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the claims that arose in (1) Suffolk County, New York, (2) El Paso, Texas, (3) Dona Ana County, New Mexico, (4) Pueblo County, Colorado, and (5) Cook County, Illinois for improper venue, without prejudice to Biggers’ filing new civil actions in the proper venues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). C. Leave to Amend Any Claim That Arose in the Southern District of New York Biggers proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Biggers may be able to allege facts to state a valid claim regarding the events that arose in New York County, or any other county within the Southern District of New York,6 the Court grants Biggers 30 days’ leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims. Should Biggers file an amended complaint, she must name only those defendants who she asserts violated her rights in a county within the Southern District of New York.
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the claims that arose in Suffolk, El Paso, Dona Ana, Pueblo, and Cook Counties for improper venue, without prejudice to Biggers filing new civil actions in the proper venues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court grants Biggers 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint asserting any claim that arose in New York County, or in any other county within the Southern District of New York. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2023
Laura Taylor Swain New York, New York
There had been no movement on the case for months. Back in February, Biggers was authorized to move forward with the lawsuit without pre-paying any court fees. Court records indicate she notified by mail of this developmental in March at a home address she lists in New York City on the lawsuit. The 48-page lawsuit showed Biggers seeking $3 billion in damages. The majority of the filing is a long list of defendants, some of whom are listed multiple times.
None of the defendants listed had ever been served.
Texas court records indicate that Biggers still has a bench warrant out for her after not appearing for a criminal trial in December 2022 in Texas, where she was to face charges of interference with child custody and "aggravated kidnapping facilitate." In the State of Texas, interference with child custody is when someone "takes or retains a child when that person knows that the taking or detention of the child violates a judgment or order." It is considered a state jail felony and can be punishable by up to two years in prison.
In her lawsuit, Biggers makes reference to being taken to Riker's Island (a jail in NYC) after U.S. Marshalls arrived at her home in NYC to arrest her in October 2021, but that they failed to provide a "scintilla" of evidence in a hearing about her extradition. She claims that the Judge overseeing the hearing ordered her released but the arrest and hearing allowed for the "kidnapping" of her children and that the law enforcement agencies involved "failed to intervene."
Biggers also cited that "the terroristic tactics, actions and events" have caused her to be unable to gain employment and has "destroyed her professional wrestling career."
Biggers had been indicted on those charges way back in August 2019, leading to her being listed as one of El Paso’s most wanted fugitives after failing to appear in court. There are two court instances where her no-shows led to her bail being revoked. She was finally arraigned in December 2019. At a point, a bench warrant for her arrest was issued for missing a hearing but rescinded after she posted a $6,000 bond.
Biggers last wrestled in 2011 for the now-defunct Lucha Libre USA promotion, which aired on MTV. Biggers was part of the 2005 WWE Diva Search and was signed to a developmental contract after failing to make it past the top 25 contestants in the search. She was sent to Deep South Wrestling but was released in May 2006. She worked for a number of independent promotions and in Japan before signing with Impact Wrestling in 2008, departing that promotion in 2009. She worked for Lucha Libre USA in 2010 and 2011.
Biggers had been posting videos to YouTube in relation to her criminal case, claiming her indictment was "fake" but later made the videos private.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
