Gay et al v. Martin et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: The 22 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter shall be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on January 29, 2010. (AWD) cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-26-JBC JAMES V. GAY and EARL GAY, V. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PLAINTIFFS,

TEDDY E. MARTIN and MONTGOMERY CO. SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

DEFENDANTS.

*********** This matter is before the court on the motion of Defendant Fred Shortridge, in his official capacity as Montgomery County Sheriff, to dismiss the amended complaint because it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. R. 22; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the court will grant the motion. The court previously ordered the plaintiffs, James Gay and Earl Gay, to amend their complaint in order to plead sufficient facts in support of their claim under the Equal Protection Clause. R. 13 at 5. Specifically, the Gays needed to state that "(1) the Sheriff (a state actor) (2) intentionally discriminated against them (3) because of their race (4) while treating differently white persons who made complaints similar to the ones made by the plaintiffs." Id. at 5-6. The amended complaint does not contain any factual allegations regarding the treatment of nonAfrican-Americans who made complaints similar to those made by the plaintiffs, or any other proof (such as racist statements or other remarks) that the sheriff's office

intentionally discriminated against them because of their race. Although the court is bound by the factual allegations in the complaint, it need not accept as true legal conclusions "couched as factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). Because the complaint does not allege a sufficient factual basis for their equal protection claim, the Gays have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss, R. 22, is GRANTED. The case is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter shall be STRICKEN from the court's active docket.

Signed on January 29, 2010