HOPKINS v. INDIANA STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 14

CLOSED - Defendants' motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/8/2014 (dist made)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

KENYA HOPKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INDIANA STATE DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS,
MICHAEL NESBITT,
BRIAN BALL,
CHRIS CHRISTOPHERSON,
STEVEN KEEVER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-01885-SEB-TAB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants Indiana Department of Correction, Michael Nesbitt, Brian Ball, Chris
Christopherson, and Steven Keever have filed a Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 12] the
Employment Discrimination Complaint filed by pro se litigant Plaintiff Kenya Hopkins.
Defendants argue that Ms. Hopkins’s Complaint is impermissibly vague by its failure to meet the
pleading standards set forth by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ms. Hopkins has
filed no response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion. For the reasons explicated below,
Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and Ms. Hopkins’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of claims for “failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In determining the
sufficiency of a claim, the court considers all allegations in the complaint to be true and draws

such reasonable inferences as required in the plaintiff's favor. Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215
F.3d 758, 765 (7th Cir. 2000). In order to survive a challenge under this rule, a complaint must
have “facial plausibility”-- that is, the plaintiff must provide factual material sufficient to support
an 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). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. If a claim has
been satisfactorily stated, “it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the
allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563, 127 S. Ct. 1955,
167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Thus, at this stage of the litigation, “the plaintiff receives the benefit
of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint.” Sanjuan v. Am Bd.
Of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F. 3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires plaintiff to provide a short, plain
statement of the claim that will “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. However, such “notice” pleading does
not require the facts in the complaint to be pled with particularity unless the complaint alleges
fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The plausibility standard calls for a “context-specific inquiry that
requires the court to drawn on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679.
Ms. Hopkins’s Complaint fails to meet the requirements of controlling caselaw as well as
Rule 8’s notice pleading standards. The Complaint makes no reference whatsoever to the
Indiana Department of Corrections, Brian Ball, Chris Christopherson, or Steven Keever, which is
reason enough to dismiss Ms. Hopkins’s claims against these individuals. Furthermore, the only
allegation related to Michael Nesbitt states as follows:

Officer Michael Nesbitt’s statements regarding the facts were not all inclusive.
The fact that Mr. Nesbitt stated that he was touched in a non-sexual manner but
stated cause as physical & verbal harassment is an oxymoron. The witness used
verbage [sic] which would cause his testimony & its truthfulness to be brought
into question.
This allegation (confusing, at best) clearly fails to provide notice to Officer Nesbitt or any other
of the Defendants of Ms. Hopkins’s legal claims against them Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion
is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/08/2014
Dated:_________________________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
KENYA HOPKINS
2210 Fescue Pl. #B
Indianapolis, IN 46260
Aileen E. Wenzel
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Laura Lee Bowker
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]