Arnzen et al v. Smith et al
ORDER granting 60 Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 23 is dismissed with prejudice; denying as moot 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and 59 Motion for Extension of Time for Scheduling Order Deadlines. Signed by Senior Judge Donald E OBrien on 6/2/2014. (des)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
JOHN W. ARNZEN, III,
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The above captioned case has a long procedural history.
The Plaintiff filed this case, arguing that CCUSO’s use of
Plaintiff’s claim regarding the use of polygraphs at CCUSO was
consolidated into a previously filed class action, 05-CV-4065DEO.
05-CV-4065-DEO involved CCUSO patients, as a class,
05-CV-4065-DEO reached a settlement, but that agreement did
not cover the use of polygraphs at CCUSO. The Court separated
the polygraph question back into the above captioned case.
In the present Amended Complaint, Docket No. 23, the
Plaintiff seeks “injunctive and declaratory relief” to prevent
the use of polygraphs at CCUSO.
On April 22, 2013, the
Docket No. 29.
On November 7, 2013, the Court
Following that hearing, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Docket No. 46.
On April 16, 2014, the Court held
a hearing on the Motion to Reassign.
At that hearing, the
parties advised the Court that they were near a settlement.
The Court advised the parties that if the settlement fell
through, the Court would transfer the case.
On May 28, 2014,
the Plaintiff filed an unresisted Motion to Dismiss, stating:
The parties have reached a mutually agreed
upon settlement. The parties agree that it
is appropriate to dismiss the case now that
the settlement has been finalized.
Docket No. 60.
MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD
The notice pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give “a short and
plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to
In order to meet this standard and to survive a
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 663 (2009) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
This requirement of facial plausibility means that the factual
content of the plaintiff's allegations must “allow[ ] the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Cole v. Homier Distrib.
Co. Inc., 599 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2010).
courts must assess the plausibility of a given claim with
reference to the plaintiff's allegations as a whole, not in
terms of the plausibility of each individual allegation.
Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Group, 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.
4 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted).
is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
556 U.S. at 664.
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal alterations and citations
Nevertheless, although the “plausibility standard
requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that
success on the merits is more than a sheer possibility,” it is
not a “probability requirement.”
Braden v. Wal–Mart Stores,
Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009).
As such, “a
well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy
judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable,
and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely,”
In assessing “plausibility,” as required by the Supreme
Court in Iqbal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has
explained that courts should consider only the materials that
attached to the complaint.
See Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc.,
323 F.3d 695, 697 n. 4 (8th Cir. 2003), stating that “in
considering a motion to dismiss, the district court may
sometimes consider materials outside the pleadings, such as
materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings and
exhibits attached to the complaint.
Porous Media Corp. v.
Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999).
may also consider “materials that are part of the public
record or do not contradict the complaint.” Miller v. Redwood
Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2012).
more complete list of the matters outside of the pleadings
that a court may consider, without converting a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment,
pursuant to Rule 12(d), includes matters incorporated by
reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial
notice, matters of public record, orders, items appearing in
the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint
whose authenticity is unquestioned.
Van Stelton v. Van
Stelton, 11-CV-4045-MWB, 2013 WL 3776813 (N.D. Iowa 2013)
(internal citations omitted).
Based on the forgoing, it is clear that the parties have
settled their dispute and the Plaintiff moves to dismiss the
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss must be granted.
For the reasons set out above, the Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss, Docket No. 60, is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, Docket No. 23, is DISMISSED with prejudice.1 Based
on that, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 29, the
The settlement agreement
prejudice. See Docket No. 61.
Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time, Docket No. 59, are
DENIED as moot.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2014.
Donald E. O’Brien, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa
To the extent the Court previously indicated that it
would transfer and reassign this case pursuant to Docket No.
46, that portion of the Order (Docket No. 56) is vacated.
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?