Chambers v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents
| Decision Date | 28 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:16-cv-02851-JPM-dkv,2:16-cv-02851-JPM-dkv |
| Parties | BRIANNA NECOLE CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS, SOUTHWEST TENNESSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, JAMES WHITE, individually and in his official capacity, NIKITA L. ASHFORD-ASHWORTH, individually and in her official capacity, KRUBAH S. SISUSE, individually and in her official capacity, ANGELA WEBB, individually and in her official capacity, and other unknown and unnamed individuals or entities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Tennessee Board of Regents, Southwest Tennessee Community College, as well as James White, Nikita L. Ashford-Ashworth, Krubah S. Sisuse, and Angela Webb, in their individual and official capacities, on February 27, 2017. (ECF No. 26.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff Brianna Chambers' Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15, filed March 29, 2017 (ECF No. 35), and her Second Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15, filed May 25, 2017 (ECF No. 37).1 For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motions to amend the Complaint and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff Brianna Necole Chambers brings this civil action in regards to an alleged sexual assault by Defendant James White, an employee of Defendant Southwest Tennessee Community College ("Southwest") on its Gill Campus, committed on October 28, 2015 while Plaintiff was a student.2 (ECF No. 1 ¶ 13.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant White continued to make lewd and inappropriate comments to her. (Id. ¶ 14.) She allegedly reported the incident to the Memphis Police Department and Southwest (id. ¶ 15), but claims that Southwest and its employees failed to conduct an adequate investigation, failed to take appropriate remedial actionagainst Defendant White, and created an environment conducive to sexual assault (id. ¶¶ 19-21). Plaintiff asserts violation to her constitutional rights in contravention of the Civil Rights Act and Due Process Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983), conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985), negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, special, and punitive damages in an amount of no less than $700,000.00. (Id. at PageIDs 9-17.)
On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Complaint. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On February 7, 2017, Defendants moved for an extension of time to file a response (ECF No. 16), which the Court granted on February 8, 2017. (ECF No. 19.)
On February 27, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 26.)
Defendants also filed a Motion to Stay Discovery on February 27, 2017. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to the Motion to Stay on March 14, 2017 (ECF No. 28), which the Court granted on March 16, 2017. (ECF No. 32.) On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Response in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 33.)
On March 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (ECF No. 35.) On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Response in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 36.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, filed May 25, 2017. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint purports to add facts in response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26).(ECF No. 37 at PageID 215.) Plaintiff's attached Certificate of Consultation suggests this motion is unopposed. (ECF No. 37-1.) More than fourteen (14) days have passed, and Defendants have not opposed the motion.
"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires." Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 520 (6th Cir. 2010). Rule 15 "plainly embodies a liberal amendment policy," Morse v. McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 2002), that "reinforces the principle that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the technicalities of pleadings," Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 388 F.3d 930, 937 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Moore v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 559 (6th Cir. 1986)) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
When a proposed amendment would occur outside the applicable statute of limitations, as in the instant case,3 a plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint "relates back" to the initial complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(c). "An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when: . . . the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out--or attempted to be set out--in the original pleading . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(c)(1)(B).
If the amendment relates back, leave is appropriate "[i]n the absence of . . . undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the amendment." Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 905 (6th Cir. 2003); accord Riverview, 601 F.3d at 520. A proposed amendment is futile "if the court concludes that the pleading as amended could not withstand a motion to dismiss." Midkiff v. Adams Cnty. Reg'l Water Dist., 409 F.3d 758, 767 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc., 801 F.2d 246, 249 (6th Cir. 1986)).
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) falls into two categories, facial attacks and factual attacks. A facial attack is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading itself. Regarding these motions, the court must take all the material allegations within the petition as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. U.S. v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994). On the other hand, a factual attack challenges the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction wherein no presumption of truthfulness applies. Id. A 12(b)(1) challenge based on immunity may constitute either a facial or factual attack. See Hatcher v. United States, 855 F. Supp. 2d 728, 731 (E.D. Tenn. 2012), aff'd, 512 F. App'x 527 (6th Cir. 2013); Freeman v. Sullivan, 954 F. Supp. 2d 730, 753 (W.D. Tenn. 2013), aff'd (Dec. 27, 2013).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) allows dismissal of a complaint that "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." As such, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion permits the "defendant to testwhether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything alleged in the complaint is true." Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Nishiyama v. Dickson Cnty., 814 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1987)). A motion to dismiss only tests whether the plaintiff has plead a cognizable claim and allows the court to dismiss meritless cases which would waste judicial resources and result in unnecessary discovery. Brown v. City of Memphis, 440 F.Supp.2d 868, 872 (W.D. Tenn. 2006).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must determine whether the complaint alleges "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). If a court decides in light of its judicial experience and common sense, that the claim is not plausible, the case may be dismissed at the pleading stage. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above [a] speculative level." Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A claim is plausible on its face if "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations. However, a plaintiff's "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court may look to "matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to the complaint" for guidance. Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001)).
The Court finds that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint would be futile and thus DENIES her motion to amend. For the same reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in her original Complaint (ECF No. 1) on which relief may be granted and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all Defendants, except for Defendant White, because they are immune from suit. Because the Court dismisses each of Plaintiff's federal-law claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts seven causes of action. Her first cause is a § 1983 claim for a due process violation in association with "Defendants Tennessee Board of Regents and Southwest Tennessee Community College established rules,...
To continue reading
Request your trial