Chaney v. Community Hospice of Baldwin County et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting Motion to Dismiss filed by Brett Adair. All claims asserted against defendant Adair are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge William H. Steele on 8/22/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRY CHANEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMUNITY HOSPICE OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION 18-0237-WS-M
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 11) filed by defendant
Brett Adair. By Order (doc. 14) entered on July 24, 2018, the undersigned fixed a deadline of
August 7, 2018, for plaintiff, Terry Chaney, to respond. In deference to Chaney’s pro se status,
the July 24 Order cautioned her in bold text that “this briefing schedule marks her only
opportunity to be heard on defendant Adair’s Motion to Dismiss. If plaintiff fails to file a
response in a timely manner, the Court will take the Motion under submission without the benefit
of any argument or authorities that plaintiff might otherwise wish to submit.” (Doc. 14.)
Notwithstanding these admonitions, Chaney elected not to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
The applicable briefing deadline having expired more than two weeks ago, the Motion is
properly taken under submission at this time.1
1
The fact that Chaney is not represented by counsel in no way alters this
conclusion because “even pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules and court orders.”
Johnson v. Champions, 990 F. Supp.2d 1226, 1236 n.16 (S.D. Ala. 2014). That said, Chaney’s
failure to respond to Adair’s Motion to Dismiss neither constitutes a legal abandonment of her
claims nor authorizes the reflexive granting of said Motion without examining its merits. See,
e.g., Gailes v. Marengo County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 916 F. Supp.2d 1238, 1243-44 (S.D. Ala. 2013)
(explaining that “the Court will not treat a claim as abandoned merely because the plaintiff has
not defended it in opposition to a motion to dismiss,” but “will review the merits of the
defendant’s position” instead); Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., 2014 WL 7184340, *7 n.10
(S.D. Ala. Dec. 16, 2014) (“the Court declines to equate plaintiff’s failure to respond [to a Rule
12(b) motion] with waiver or abandonment of those claims”). However, plaintiff’s omission is at
her peril. The Court will not fill in the blanks with arguments she could have raised but did not.
On May 22, 2018, Chaney filed a Complaint naming as defendants Community Hospice
of Baldwin County, Brett Adair and Jennifer Stewart. (Doc. 1, at 1.) In her form Complaint,
Chaney alleged that, in terminating her employment, defendants discriminated against her on the
basis of her race, national origin, mental disability, and age, and that they also unlawfully
retaliated against her. The Complaint’s primary set of factual allegations consists of the
following:
“I believe that I were discharged because of my age and in retaliation for
reporting been discriminated and Harassment by Jennifer Stewart to Nick (Vice
President) she spoke because of my age I can’t do what I use to do. I could not
believe Dr. Dan told me that they firing me for that and some more, I could not
believe his words.”
(Doc. 1, ¶ 11.) The only other factual allegation in the Complaint is a statement that “she remind
me when she started back to work in April or May, 2017 that she were going to terminate me
from my job, and will make sure I will never work again.” (Id., ¶ 6(D).) The sole reference to
defendant Brett Adair is found in the caption of the case on page 1 of the Complaint. Indeed, the
pleading lacks a single factual allegation about Adair, much less any basis for ascribing to him
legal liability for the alleged violations of civil rights statutes about which Chaney complains.
Defendant Brett Adair now seeks dismissal of Chaney’s claims against him pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Adair’s Motion is predicated in part on movant’s observation that “Plaintiff has failed to plead
any factual content to allow this Court to draw the reasonable inference that Mr. Adair is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” (Doc. 11, at 6.)
To withstand Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny and satisfy the minimum pleading requirements
prescribed by Rule 8(a), a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,” so as to “nudge[] [her] claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted).
“This necessarily requires that a plaintiff include factual allegations for each essential element of
his or her claim.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1254 (11th Cir. 2012).
Thus, minimum pleading standards “require[] more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. As the
-2-
Eleventh Circuit has explained, Twombly / Iqbal principles demand that a complaint’s allegations
be “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health
and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 380 (11th Cir.
2010) (citations omitted). “To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint does not need
detailed factual allegations, … but must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir.
2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The allegations “must … state a claim
for relief that is plausible – and not merely possible – on its face.” Almanza v. United Airlines,
Inc., 851 F.3d 1060, 1066 (11th Cir. 2017).
In its present form, Chaney’s Complaint falls well short of the Twombly / Iqbal pleading
requirements as to defendant Adair. Even under the liberal construction to which pro se
pleadings are entitled, Chaney’s Complaint is devoid of any factual content that might support a
reasonable inference that Adair is liable for any of the misconduct alleged therein. Simply put,
the Complaint lacks the necessary facts to state a claim to relief against Adair that is plausible on
its face. Indeed, careful review of the Complaint confirms that it affords Adair no notice of what
Chaney’s claims against him are, or what the factual underpinnings of such claims might be. In
light of these glaring deficiencies, the Court readily agrees with defendant Adair that Chaney has
failed to state a claim against him and that her claims against him are properly dismissed at this
time pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 11) filed by defendant Brett
Adair is granted, and all claims asserted against defendant Adair are dismissed without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Brett Adair as a party defendant. This
action will proceed as to plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants, Community
Hospice of Baldwin County and Jennifer Stewart.
DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2018.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
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?