Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County
Decision Date | 11 April 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 90-252-CIV.,90-252-CIV. |
Citation | 855 F. Supp. 351 |
Parties | Fred and Bonita BENSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, The State of Florida, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Mark V. Silverio, Miami, FL, for plaintiffs.
Joni Armstrong Coffey, Asst. County Atty., Miami, FL, Stanley J. Niego, SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL, for defendants.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant South Florida Water Management (SFWMD)'s Motion to Dismiss portions of the Third Amended Complaint.
As the Court noted in its Order of April 30, 1992, the Plaintiffs' earlier Amended Complaint failed to allege "an affirmative causal connection between the actions taken by a particular person `under color of state law' and the constitutional deprivation." Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1380 (11th Cir.1982) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 932, 104 S.Ct. 335, 78 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983).
SFWMD argues that the Third Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to remedy the earlier insufficiency of their allegations against SFWMD under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs contend that SFWMD's conduct is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because "SFWMD affirmatively used state and/or county procedures to effectuate a purpose not intended by state law or permitted by the constitution." Such conduct, according to Plaintiffs, deprived the plaintiffs of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
A court shall not grant a motion to dismiss unless it appears beyond doubt that a claimant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In determining whether dismissal is warranted, the material allegations of a plaintiff's claims are taken as true and are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Burch v. Apalachee Community Mental Health Service, Inc., 840 F.2d 797, 798 (11th Cir.1988), aff'd, 494 U.S. 113, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990); Jackam v. Hospital Corp. of America Mideast, 800 F.2d 1577, 1579 (11th Cir.1986) ( )(citations omitted); St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc. v. Hospital Corp. of America, 795 F.2d 948, 954 (11th Cir.1986); Quality Foods v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corp., 711 F.2d 989, 995 (11th Cir.1983) ( ).
The Plaintiffs have failed to allege any new facts in the Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint contains two new paragraphs which include conclusory statements about SFWMD's actions but provide no factual support for the assertions. The two new paragraphs are:
Such bare allegations lead this Court to conclude that dismissal is again appropriate.
As noted in the Court's previous Order, SFWMD does not deny that it "endorsed the adoption of the subject ordinances in 1981," however, SFWMD denies that it implemented and participated in the enactment of the ordinances. The 1972 SFWMD workshop meeting which, according to Plaintiffs, marked the beginning of the conspiracy to ultimately deprive them of their constitutional rights was limited to a general discussion of policy options. As the Court previously found, no policy resolutions appear to have been made at the meeting.
"Section 1983 plaintiffs must establish both deprivation of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal laws and action by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Jet 1 Center, Inc.
...to relief. Parker v. Wakelin, 882 F.Supp. 1131 (D.Me.1995); Straka v. Francis, 867 F.Supp. 767 (N.D.Ill.1994); Bensch v. Metropolitan Dade County, 855 F.Supp. 351 (S.D.Fla.1994). Treating a Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary As a general proposition, on a motion to dismiss, the court......
- Friedman v. South Carolina Ins. Co.