Harris v. Wooden

• Decision Date: 09 September 2011
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 11–035–SLR.
• Citation: 808 F.Supp.2d 736
• Parties: Ayn HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. Debra WOODEN, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

808 F.Supp.2d 736

Ayn HARRIS, Plaintiff,

v.Debra WOODEN, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 11–035–SLR.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Sept. 9, 2011.

Ayn Harris, Gibbstown, NJ, pro se.

Daniel Foster McAllister, Esquire, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ayn Harris (“plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and was granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. ( See D.I. 3) Presently before the court is the motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) filed by defendants City of Wilmington (“the City”), Department of Revenue (“Department of Revenue”), Department of Police Records (“Department of Records”), John Rago (“Rago”), and Debra Wooden (“Wooden”) (together “City defendants”). (D.I. 26) Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. The complaint states that this court has diversity and original jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed, the court will deny in part and grant in part the motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It was transferred to this court on January 7, 2011. ¹ ( See D.I. 23)

On April 5, 2010, plaintiff, who resides in New Jersey, discovered that her vehicle, parked on a street in Wilmington, Delaware, was immobilized through the use of a device called a “boot.” Plaintiff had recently purchased the car for $1,500.00 from a Pennsylvania dealership and was waiting for the car's title to be mailed to her. As a result, the car was unregistered.

A notice on the windshield of the car provided a phone number for the City and instructions on how to retrieve the car. The notice states, “If you think there are valid reasons why your vehicle should not have been immobilized, you may pay the total amount due ‘under protest,’ at which time your vehicle will be released. You may pick up the appeal procedures and form at the Revenue Department.... The appeal must be filed within 5 days after payment is made.” (D.I. 1, ex. A) According to the complaint, plaintiff called the number and spoke with a woman who informed her that the car was mistakenly booted. The woman informed plaintiff that she would not be charged any money. Plaintiff was told as well: (1) that the car would be towed but she could retrieve it once she provided proof of ownership; (2) to check with the Department of Revenue and the Records Department to ensure that she did not owe any money to the City or that any warrants were outstanding before she attempted to reclaim the vehicle; and (3) that, once she received a release, she could take possession of her car, but she was required to have the vehicle towed to New Jersey. An employee with defendant Swift Towing (“Swift Towing”) arrived to remove the boot from plaintiff's vehicle and towed it away.² (D.I. 1)

On or about April 9, 2010, plaintiff visited the Department of Revenue and the Records Department and met with Wooden, a cashier supervisor with the Department of Revenue, who refused to release her car. Next, plaintiff spoke with Rago, the Director of Communications with the City. Plaintiff showed Rago her bill of sale as proof of ownership of the vehicle, and Rago indicated that he would arrange for the release of her car. Rago left and returned approximately forty-five minutes later. He refused to release the car without giving a reason.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint asserting that the refusal to release her vehicle violated her due process, equal protection, and property rights. According to plaintiff, her car has been withheld from her without any explanation or opportunity to demonstrate why it should not be released. Plaintiff seeks the return of her car and any other injunctive or declaratory relief deemed fit by the court.

On January 18, 2011, City defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). More particularly, City defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to the extent jurisdiction lies in diversity because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. In addition, they argue that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEWA. Rule 12(b)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Motions brought under Rule 12(b)(1) may present either a facial or factual challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. In reviewing a facial challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), the standards relevant to Rule 12(b)(6) apply. In this regard, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and the court may only consider the complaint and documents referenced in or attached to the complaint. Gould Electronics Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir.2000). In reviewing a factual challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court is not confined to the allegations of the complaint, and the presumption of truthfulness does not attach to the allegations in the complaint. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977). Instead, the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings, including affidavits, depositions and testimony, to resolve any factual issues bearing on jurisdiction. Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir.1997). Once the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891.

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir.2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, her pleading is liberally construed and her complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (citations omitted).

A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2009). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim are separated. Id. The court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id. at 210–11. Second, the court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” Id. at 211; see also Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In other words, the complaint must do more than allege plaintiff's entitlement to relief; rather, it must “show” such an entitlement with its facts. A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). The plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

IV. DISCUSSION

The court turns first to the issue of dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Even if the amount in controversy is below $75,000, thus divesting this court of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the amount in controversy is irrelevant to plaintiff's claims alleging violations of her constitutional rights vesting this court with original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.³

A. Constitutional Claims

The complaint alleges a violation of the right to due process in that plaintiff received no notice or hearing before being denied her property rights and a violation of the right to equal protection in that she was not provided reasons why she was treated differently from others whose cars were towed in similar situations.

1. Due process

City defendants argue for dismissal by referring to the Wilmington City Code and relying upon their position that the bill of sale for the vehicle at issue is not proof of ownership. In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court should look to the face of the pleadings and decide whether, taking all of the allegations of fact as true and construing them in a light most favorable to the non-movant, the allegations state a legal claim. Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1990). The court may take judicial notice of relevant city code sections. See Goodwin v. Elkins & Co., 730 F.2d 99, 103 n. 6 (3d Cir.1984) (“To the extent [the court relies] on sources outside of the complaint to reach [its] conclusions, such reliance is based only upon relevant state statutes...