Romious v. Nixon et al

Filing 11

ORDER & REASONS: for the reasons stated, dfts' 7 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and dfts named in 2/29/2012 Order to show cause are similarly dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 3/27/2012. (rll, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CARLOS ROMIOUS, SR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-13

JEREMIAH NIXON, ET AL.

SECTION: R

ORDER AND REASONS
In this case, plaintiff Carlos Romious has sued various
defendants individually and in their official capacities as state
actors. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, jointly and severally,
violated assorted federal laws, committed various torts, and
breached an oral contract with plaintiff. Romious’s complaint
includes no facts to support his legal conclusions. This Order
resolves both: (1) a motion to dismiss brought by certain
defendants to which plaintiff has failed to respond;1 and (2)
plaintiff’s failure to show good cause, despite instruction from
the Court to do so,2 as to why he has failed to prosecute his
case against the other defendants.

1

R. Doc. 7.

2

R. Doc. 8.

I.

MOTION TO DISMISS

A.

Standard
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff

must plead enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547
(2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads
facts that allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. at 1949; Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011).
A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v.
U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232–33 (5th Cir. 2009); Baker
v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). But the Court is not
bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949–50.
A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a
“sheer possibility” that plaintiff's claim is true. Id. It need
not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must go beyond
labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the
elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In other
words, the face of the complaint must contain enough factual
matter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
2

reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff’s claim.
Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255–57. If there are insufficient factual
allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or if it is apparent from the
face of the complaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief,
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Carbe v. Lappin, 492
F.3d 325, 328 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007), the claim must be dismissed.

B.

Discussion
The following defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6): John Tarleton
Olivier, Clerk of the Louisiana Supreme Court; Catherine D.
Kimball, Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court; Greg G.
Guidry, Associate Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court; Jeffrey
P. Victory, Associate Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court;
Jeannette Theriot Knoll, Associate Justice of the Louisiana
Supreme Court; Marcus R. Clark, Associate Justice of the
Louisiana Supreme Court; John L. Weimer, Associate Justice of the
Louisiana Supreme Court; and Bernette J. Johnson, Associate
Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Plaintiff’s omnibus attack includes as defendants Justices
of the Louisiana Supreme Court, sued in their official capacities
in violation of the 11th Amendment. Several of his allegations,
3

including claims that the Justices violated antitrust laws, are
nonsensical and facially frivolous as a matter of law. Plaintiff
has alleged no specific facts whatsoever, and the legal
conclusions recited will not suffice to survive a motion to
dismiss. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949–50. Therefore, the Court
dismisses plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

II.

FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE
On February 29, 2012, the Court instructed plaintiff to show

good cause, in writing and by March 16, 2012, why he has failed
to prosecute his case against the other defendants in this case:
Jeremiah Nixon, Chris Koster, James Carrier, Joshua Harrell,
Brady Musgrave, Robin Carnahan, Alton Vaughn, Sr., Jim Arnott,
Clint Zweifel, Joseph Schoeberl, John Wicheter, Steve Helms, J.
Dan Conklin, Thomas Mountjoy, Marilyn Dulaban, Calvin Holden,
Jason Brown, Sharon Weedin, Richard Teitelman, John Holstein,
George W. Draper, III, Laura Denvir Stith, Mary Russell, Patricia
Breckenridge, William Price, Jr., Zel Fischer, Lawton Nuss, Marla
Luckert, Carol Beier, Eric Rosen, Lee Johnson, Dan Biles, Gary
Fenner, Lisa Mitchell, Katherine Calvert, Danielle Pressler, Jill
Anderson, Nancy Moritz, and Peter Bender. The deadline has
passed, and plaintiff has failed to respond as required. The
4

Court further notes that, for reasons already discussed,
plaintiff’s frivolous complaint fails to state claims against any
of the defendants named. Therefore, the above-named defendants
are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is
granted, and the defendants named in the February 29, 2012 Order
to show cause are similarly dismissed with prejudice.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of March, 2012.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5