Mallory v. City of Riverside
Decision Date | 25 November 2013 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:13-cv-220 |
Parties | MARISOL MALLORY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, OHIO, et al. Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. No. 16) and Defendants have filed a Reply Memorandum in Support (Doc. No. 17).
The parties unanimously consented to plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) in their Rule 26(f) Report (Doc. No. 12) and Judge Rice has referred the case on that basis (Doc. No. 13).
In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept all well-pleaded material allegations of the complaint as true. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget,510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007); Ziegler v. IBP Hog Mkt., Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 511-12 (6th Cir. 2001); Paskvan v. City of Cleveland Civil Serv. Comm'n., 946 F.2d 1233, 1235 (6th Cir. 1991), citing Beal v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 312 U.S. 45, 51 (1941). The Court must then decide whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993). This is the same standard applied in deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008); EEOC v. J. H. Routh Packing Co., 246 F.3d 850, 851 (6th Cir. 2001).
The test for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) has recently been re-stated by the Supreme Court:
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed.2004)("[T]he pleading must contain something more ... than ... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action"), on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)(" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) ( ).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 555 (2007).
[W]hen the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, "'this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.'" 5 Wright & Miller § 1216, at 233-234 (quoting Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., 114 F. Supp. 643, 645 (D. Hawaii 1953) ); see also Dura [Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005)], at 346, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L. Ed. 2d 577; Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 289F. Supp. 2d 986, 995 (N.D.Ill.2003) ( )("[S]ome threshold of plausibility must be crossed at the outset before a patent antitrust case should be permitted to go into its inevitably costly and protracted discovery phase").
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558 ( ); see also Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007). In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), the Supreme Court made it clear that Twombly applies in all areas of federal law and not just in the antitrust context in which it was announced.
"[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)(on a motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.")
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 439 (6th Cir. 2008), citing League of United Latin Am. Citizens. v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007)("must do more than create speculative or suspicion of a legally cognizable cause of action; they must show entitlement to relief") allegations in a complaint ; see further Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009), Tam Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc. (In re Travel Agent Comm'n Antitrust Litig.), 583 F.3d 896, 903 (6th Cir. 2009),New Albany Tractor v. Louisville Tractor, 650 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 2011) ( )
Under Iqbal, a civil complaint will only survive a motion to dismiss if it Courie v. Alcoa Wheel & Forged Prods., 577 F.3d 625, 629-630 (6th Cir. 2009).
A decision on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or 12(c) motion is a decision on the sufficiency of the pleadings, and not on whether a plaintiff could plead a sufficient claim. If a complaint is founded wanting on a Rule 12(c) motion, the burden is on the plaintiff to offer an amendment correcting the deficiencies, if she or he can do so consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. When a district court denies a motion to amend after granting a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or 12(c), the Sixth Circuit will review both the complaint and the proposed amended complaint for purposes of construing the facts. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority, 55 F.3d 1097 (6th Cir. 1995). If a party does not file a motion to amend, it is not an abuse of discretion to dismiss with prejudice. CNH Am. LLC v. UAW, 645 F.3d 785, 795 (6th Cir. 2011).
The Complaint in this case purports to state six separate claims for relief. It names as Defendants the City of Riverside, Ohio; Riverside Police Chief Mark Reiss; and Riverside PoliceOfficers Harold Jones and Matthew Jackson. Reiss, Jones, and Jackson are sued in both their individual and official capacities.
The First Claim is labeled as a claim for conspiracy between Jones and Jackson to violate Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, and Fifteenth Amendment rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Second Claim asserts these two Defendants violated the same rights, but makes no conspiracy allegation. The Third Claim for Relief returns to the conspiracy charge, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial