Washington v. Russell County Board of Education et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 76

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) Mr. Washington's 71 objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 64 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) Dfts' 50 & 53 Renewed Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED to the extent such motions seek dismissal of Mr. Washing ton's federal-law claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); 4) Mr. Washington's state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c)(3); A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/5/2018. (alm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
LEE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-942-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(Doc. # 64), to which Plaintiff Lee Washington has objected (Doc. # 71). The
court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Mr. Washington’s first objection is to the standard of review used by the
Magistrate Judge in considering Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Previously, Mr.
Washington, proceeding pro se, sought to amend his original complaint after an
earlier Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge concluded the complaint should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
(Doc. # 46.) The court allowed him to amend (Doc. # 48), and Mr. Washington
filed his Amended Complaint pro se (Doc. # 49). Mr. Washington then acquired

counsel, who responded to Defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss.1 (Doc. # 59.)
The Magistrate Judge notes in the instant Recommendation that the Amended
Complaint retained many of the same defects as the first pleading, despite the
detailed descriptions in the earlier Recommendation of its deficiencies.

The

Magistrate Judge concluded that because Mr. Washington’s counsel had not moved
to amend the Amended Complaint, it “minimally carries the tacit imprimatur of
Plaintiff’s retained counsel and, therefore, should not be ‘liberally’ or ‘broadly’
construed as the court would an ordinary pro se pleading.” (Doc. # 64, at 9.)
Mr. Washington takes this to mean that the Magistrate Judge thought that
“Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) is not applicable to plaintiff’s amended complaint,” and
objects to the Magistrate Judge applying a more stringent standard than Rule 8’s
general requirement that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Doc. # 71, at 6 (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).) But that is not at all what the Magistrate Judge did. Instead,
the Magistrate Judge spent three pages discussing the correct standard of review
and explaining why Mr. Washington’s shotgun pleading failed that standard. It
also noted that even if it had applied a “less stringent standard” due pro se litigants
that Mr. Washington’s pleading would still be insufficient. (Doc. # 64, at 6–9.)
This was not error.
1

Mr. Washington’s counsel also filed the Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, then withdrew from representation. (See Docs. # 65–75.)
2

Mr. Washington next proceeds claim by claim, objecting to each of the
Magistrate Judge’s findings by, in effect, recounting the allegations found in the
Amended Complaint and citing general principles of law relevant to the specific
claim. But the fundamental problem identified by the Magistrate Judge regarding
each of Mr. Washington’s claims remains: The Amended Complaint simply does
not allege sufficient factual content to allow “the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant[s] [are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Magistrate Judge elaborated on how each
claim failed to meet this standard, and the court agrees with those findings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Mr. Washington’s objection (Doc. # 71) is OVERRULED;

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 64) is ADOPTED;

3.

Defendants’ Renewed Motions to Dismiss (Docs. # 50 and 53)

are GRANTED to the extent such motions seek dismissal of Mr. Washington’s
federal-law claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6);
4.

Mr. Washington’s state-law claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 5th day of March, 2018.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3