Page v. Hicks et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. Should Ms. Page wish to file an amended Complaint, she may file a motion for leave to do so by July 20, 2017. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 7/17/17. (SAC )
2017 Jul-17 PM 12:52
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ASHLEY WILCOX PAGE,
TODD L. HICKS, NNA, CRNA, et al.,
This matter is currently before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, in which they
argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. (Doc. 1-23). On June 9, 2017, this court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why it
should not dismiss her claims because they are not ripe for adjudication. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff filed
a response to that order explaining why she contends her claims are ripe. (Doc. 19). She correctly
observes in that response, “The Defendants’ attack in this case is based solely on the Complaint’s
allegations and is, therefore, a facial attack.” (Id. at 6). Indeed, by its nature, a motion to dismiss
makes a “facial attack” on the sufficiency of the allegations contained in a complaint. See also
Stalley v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232–33 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing
and quoting McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond Cty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th
Cir. 2007)) (“A defendant can move to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction by either facial or factual attack. A facial attack on the complaint
requires the court merely to look and see if the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject
matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in [the] complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the
motion.”). Taking the allegations within the four corners of her Complaint as true, the question
remains whether they sufficiently establish that her claim is ripe for adjudication thus properly
invoking the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
As the court has already explained, Plaintiff’s Complaint shows that at the time of filing,
Ms. Page had not completed the School of Nursing’s internal appeals process, as she must for her
dismissal to be final under the rule in Stevenson v. Bd. of Educ. of Wheeler Cty., 426 F.2d 1154
(5th Cir. 1970).1 See (Doc. 18 at 4). In her response, Ms. Page includes new factual information
not contained in her Complaint that the court cannot consider in ruling on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. Because the Plaintiff’s Complaint on its face fails to allege facts to show her claims are
ripe for adjudication, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Ms. Page’s claims. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).
The court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. Should Ms. Page wish to file an amended
Complaint, she may file a motion for leave to do so by July 20, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2017.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
down prior to October 1, 1981.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?