Pedersen et al v. State of Idaho et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting with leave to amend 8 Motion to Dismiss; denying without prejudice 15 Motion to Expedite. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or before 4/2/2012. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

REV. JAMES EINAR PEDERSEN;
REV. HAROLD DAVID BAILEY,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00601-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
STATE OF IDAHO; CASSIA
COUNTY; FIFTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT; SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF IDAHO; CITY OF
BURLEY; CITY OF BURLEY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE; CASSIA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendants Cassia County and City of Burley’s motion to
dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 8), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Ex
Parte Temporary Restraining Order or Temporary Injunction (Dkt. 15) ).
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). While a complaint
attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss "does not need detailed factual
allegations," it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
"state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. 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. Id. at 556.
The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it 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. at 557.
In a more recent case, the Supreme Court identified two "working principles" that
underlie Twombly. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). First, the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Id. "Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure
from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the
doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 1950.
Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss. Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . .
be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

experience and common sense." Id.
Providing too much in the complaint may also be fatal to a plaintiff. Dismissal may
be appropriate when the plaintiff has included sufficient allegations disclosing some
absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783,
n. 1 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that "[i]f the pleadings establish facts compelling a decision
one way, that is as good as if depositions and other . . . evidence on summary judgment
establishes the identical facts").
A dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is beyond doubt that the
complaint "could not be saved by any amendment." Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728,
737 (9th Cir. 2009)(issued 2 months after Iqbal).1 The Ninth Circuit has held that "in
dismissals for failure to state a claim, a district court should grant leave to amend even if
no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could
not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v.
Northern California Collection Service, Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). The
issue is not whether plaintiff will prevail but whether he "is entitled to offer evidence to
support the claims." Diaz v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d
1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted).

1

The Court has some concern about the continued vitality of the liberal amendment
policy adopted in Harris v. Amgen, based as it is on language in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
45-46 (1957), suggesting that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim.
. . ." Given Twombly and Iqbal's rejection of the liberal pleading standards adopted by Conley,
it is uncertain whether the language in Harris v. Amgen has much of a life expectancy.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider matters that are subject to judicial
notice. Mullis v. United States Bank, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court
may take judicial notice "of the records of state agencies and other undisputed matters of
public record" without transforming the motions to dismiss into motions for summary
judgment. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 866
(9th Cir. 2004). The Court may also examine documents referred to in the complaint,
although not attached thereto, without transforming the motion to dismiss into a motion
for summary judgment. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005).
ANALYSIS
1.

Motion to Dismiss
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant Rule 12(b)(6),

Twombly and Iqbal because Plaintiff’s claims are essentially unintelligible. The Court
agrees. Although Plaintiffs make some general allegations suggesting that they were
improperly prosecuted, and that Defendants lacked jurisdiction over them, they give no
clear indication of what they are talking about. They cite all types of statutes and
constitutional provisions, but they fail to tie them to their claims. They ask for an
injunction, but it is not clear what actions by Defendants they want enjoined. In sum, the
Court simply cannot understand Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, Plaintiffs failed to respond
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and the time for filing a response has passed.
Under these circumstances, the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss. However,
the Court will give Plaintiffs and opportunity to amend their complaint to comply with the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

pleading rules and case law. The Court cautions Plaintiffs that if they file an amended
complaint which again simply lists statutes and constitutional provisions, without tying
them to their claims and explaining their claims in a more intelligible way, the Court will
dismiss their complaint without leave to amend.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants Cassia County and City of burley’s motion to dismiss Pursuant
to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
may file and amended complaint on or before April 2, 2012.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order or
Temporary Injunction (Dkt. 15) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED: March 9, 2012

B. LYNN WINMILL
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5