Sevier v. Davis et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 1) granting 16 MOTION to Dismiss by Matt Bevin, Kim Davis 2) granting 17 MOTION to Dismiss by Andy Beshear, 3) granting 26 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Matt Bevin, Kim Davis 4) granting 30 MOT ION for Summary Judgment by Matt Bevin, Kim Davis 5) granting 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Andy Beshear 6) denying 23 FIRST MOTION for Summary Judgment by Chris Sevier and Elizabeth Ording IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from docket of this Court.. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 3/31/17.(SMT)cc: COR, Ording, Kaiser and Alexander via USMail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Civil Action No. 16-80-HRW
and ELIZABETH ORDING,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATT BEVIN, in his Official Capacity as
Governor of Kentucky,
KIM DA VIS, in her Official Capacity as
Clerk of Rowan County, and
ANDY BESHEAR, in his Official Capacity as
Attorney General ofKentucky,
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Matt Bevin and Kim Davis' Motion to
Dismiss [Docket No. 16], Defendant Andy Beshear's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 17],
Defendants Matt Bevin and Kim Davis' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No.
26], Defendants Matt Bevin and Kim Davis' Motion for Summmy Judgment [Docket No. 30],
Defendant Any Beshear's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 32] and Plaintiffs Chris
Sevier and Elizabeth Ording's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 23]. The motions
have been fully and extensively briefed by the parties. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court
finds that the Complaint and Amended Complaint fail to state any claim upon which relief can be
granted and, as such, this case must be dismissed.
Plaintiff Chris Sevier filed this civil action seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief,
alleging that he has a constitutional right to many his laptop computer [Docket No. l]. Plaintiff
Elizabeth Ording is named in the Amended Complaint; she claims she has a constitutional right
to marry an animal (Docket No. 18].
They identify themselves as "machinist" and "zoophile",
respectively, and, together, allege the Commonwealth violated the following constitutional rights
by denying Sevier's request for a marriage license permitting him marry his laptop and Ording's
request for a marriage license permitting her to many an animal:(!) the right to due process; (2) the
right to equal protection; (3) the right to freedom of association; and (4) the right to travel. They also
claim that the denial of their request for a marriage license is a violation of the Supremacy and
Establishment Clauses of the United States Constitution, and also amounts to discrimination on the
basis of race.
Defendants seek dismissal of the case pursuant to pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) and
12(b)(6), arguing that this matter does not present a real case or controversy and the allegations in
the Complaint and Amended Complaint do not establish a plausible entitlement to relief.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to allow a defendant to test whether, as a matter of
law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief. See, Mayer v. My/ad, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6'h Cir.
1993). For purposes of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6), the complaint must be
construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and its allegations taken as true.
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 377 (6" Cir. 1995). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explained
the standard in Estate of Ezra G. Smith v. United States, 509 Fed.Appx. 436 (61h Cir. 2012) that:
[t]he Supreme Court held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) that to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) a
complaint must contain ( 1) enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible; (2) more than a fonnulaic recitation of a canse of actions'
elements; and (3) allegations that suggest a right to relief above a
speculative level. (internal citation omitted) ... 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. (internal citation omitted).
Estate ofEzra G. Smith, 509 Fed.Appx. at 439.
"Conclusory assertions, e.g., that...[the] defendants engaged in 'outrageous' and
'unlawful' behavior. .. are insufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face." Ogle v.
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 513 Fed.Appx. 520, 522-523 (61hCir. 2013). The "complaint
must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a
recovety under some viable legal themy." Bishop v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.,520 F.3d 516, 519
(61h Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). Consequently, a complaint will not be dismissed unless
there is no law to support the claims made, the facts alleged are insufficient to state a claim, or
there is an insunnountable bar on the face of the complaint.
Plaintiffs are asking this Court to recognize their constitutional rights to marry an
inanimate object and an animal. No such constitutional rights exist, nor are any known
constitutional rights violated by the denial of a marriage license under these circumstances. In
short, the Plaintiffs have failed to identify a single constitutional injmy. Nor can Plaintiffs
establish a constitutionally protected propetty or libe1ty interest, which would support a claim for
the deprivation of Due Process. There is no constitutionally protected property or liberty interest
in marrying one's laptop, nor is there a constitutionally protected property or libetty interest in
manying an animal. There is simply no law which supports their claims. As such, they fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, cannot clear the Rule 12(b)(6)
Plaintiffs have filed similar lawsuits in Texas, Tennessee, Utah and South Carolina.
See Sevier v. Haley,; Sevier v. Haslam, et al., Case No. 3: 16-cv-OO 134 (M.D. Tenn.); Sevier v.
Abbott, et al., Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-00347 (S.D. Tex.); Sevier v. Herbert, et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-00124-JNP-DBP (D. Utah). They have yet to prevail. Magistrate Judge Shiva Hodges
recommended to the South Carolina District Court that the case be dismiss sua sponte because
the claims alleged "are implausible, fanciful and frivolous." Sevier v. Haley et al., Civil Action
No. 3:16-665-TLW-SVH (D.S.C.). This Court agrees.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint fail to establish any plausible
entitlement to relief. There are simply no constitutional rights violated, alleged or implicated by
the Commonwealth's refusal to grant the Plaintiffs marriage licenses to many a laptop computer
or an animal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendants' Matt Bevin and Kim Davis' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 16] be
Defendant Andy Beshear's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 17] be
Defendants Matt Bevin and Kim Davis' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 26) be SUSTAINED;
Defendants Matt Bevin and Kim Davis' Motion for Summaiy Judgment [Docket
No. 30) be SUSTAINED;
Defendant Any Beshear's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 32) be
Plaintiffs Chris Sevier and Elizabeth Ording's Motion for Summmy Judgment
[Docket No. 23) be OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and
STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.
dayof March, 2017.
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?