Nasim v. Goodly et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 22 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/10/15. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GHULAM NASIM

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-2647

COMMANDER GOODLY, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 6) filed
by defendant Orleans Parish District Attorney, Leon Cannizzaro
and a Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 17) filed by defendants Chris
Goodly, in his official capacity as the Commander of the Fifth
District of the New Orleans Police Department, and Michael
Harrison, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the
New Orleans Police Department.

The Court initially dismissed

Plaintiff Ghulam Nasim's claims, but then vacated that order upon
noting Plaintiff's address change.

(Rec. Doc. 15).

The Court

reset the submission date on the motion and instructed Plaintiff
to file any opposition by March 31, 2015.

In response, Plaintiff

filed a Motion to Stay All Action Until Following Constitutional
Issues are Resolved (Rec. Doc. 22)1 in which he asks the Court to
stay the matter until he can retain an attorney to represent him
in this matter.

1

Initially filed on March 23, 2015.
was re-filed on April 20, 2015.
1

A corrected version

The motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral
argument. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions are
GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ghulam Nasim claims that on November 22, 2013,

four unknown men assaulted him as he was waiting for a taxi cab
at the 1400 block of North Broad Avenue. Plaintiff alleges that
the four men struck him repeatedly and demanded money. Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants have not contacted him regarding the
incident that occurred, despite a request filed with Commander
Goodly’s office as to the status of capturing the assailants.2
(Rec. Doc. 1 Comp. at 3). Plaintiff broadly alleges that the
named defendants conspired to cover-up and derail Plaintiff’s
case, which violated “fundamental rules of justice.” (Rec. Doc. 1
Comp. at 4).
Plaintiff filed this Complaint pro se on November 19, 2014
seeking damages for (1) past, present, and future physical pain
and suffering; (2) past, present, and future mental pain and
suffering; (3) past, present, and future medical and hospital
bills; (4) loss of personal property stolen by the assailants;
and (5) all legal costs. Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to
these damages, amounting to four million dollars plus interest

2

The Court notes that Plaintiff sent letters regarding this
incident to defendant Goodly, defendant Cannizzaro, and Mayor
Mitchell J. Landrieu. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, at 2, 5, 14).
2

and legal costs, as a result of defendants’ “willful negligence.”

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept

all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Lormand v. US
Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs,
Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer
v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378
F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the foregoing tenet is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.
Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550, U.S. 544, 555
(2007)).
The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v. Rege, 627
F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528
F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff
must plead sufficient facts to “state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). “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.” Id. The Court

3

does not accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Id. (quoting Plotkin v.
IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal
conclusions must be supported by factual allegations. Id. (quoting
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).

A motion based on Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure challenges the Court's jurisdiction to hear a
particular matter.
Pro se pleadings must be given the benefit of liberal
construction. Cooper v. Sheriff of Lubbock Cnty., 929 F.2d 1078,
1081 (5th Cir. 1991). On the other hand, pro se litigants are not
exempt from the requirement that they plead sufficient facts to
allege a plausible claim for relief or from the principle that mere
legal conclusions do not suffice to prevent dismissal. Taylor v.
Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing
Christian Leader. Conf. v. Sup. Ct. of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th
Cir. 2001)).

III. DISCUSSION
a.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendants Goodly and Harrison challenge this Court's

jurisdiction to hear this matter based on Plaintiff's lack of
citation to any specific law or constitutional right in his
Complaint.

The Court is not persuaded by this argument.

Giving

the Complaint a liberal construction, it appears that Plaintiff
is attempting to argue that the lack of response by law
4

enforcement has violated some due process right which he
possesses.

The question of whether Plaintiff has adequately

stated such a claim is the province of an analysis under Rule
12(b)(6).
b.

Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiff's statement that "the named defendants and their

associates in conspiracy joined together, to cover-up, to derail
the petitioner's case, violating fundamental rules of justice"
represent the type of conclusory statement that the precedent
cited above has declared insufficient to allow a claim to remain
in federal court.

Plaintiff has not added any allegations that

expand on this claim.
The only specific allegations provided by Plaintiff are that
Defendants have failed to respond to his requests for updates
about the investigation.

The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's

injuries and the resulting difficulties.

The Court is also

sympathetic to Plaintiff's frustrations in obtaining more
information about the criminal investigation and for his desire
to see justice fulfilled.

However, Plaintiff has not cited, and

the Court is not aware of, any duty that Defendants have under
federal law to respond to such status requests.3

3

Without such a

The Court notes that the New Orleans Police Department
defendants have since mailed a letter to Plaintiff at his last
known address updating him on the status of the investigation.
(Rec. Doc. 24).
5

basis upon which to rest his claim, the Court cannot allow the
claim to proceed.
Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has pleaded his
"best case" and thus will not be permitted to amend his
Complaint. Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767–68 (5th Cir.
2009)(citing Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.
1998)).

Further amendment based on these facts would not cure

the Complaint's current deficiencies.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 6) filed
by defendant Orleans Parish District Attorney, Leon Cannizzaro
and the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 17) filed by defendants
Chris Goodly, in his official capacity as the Commander of the
Fifth District of the New Orleans Police Department, and Michael
Harrison, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the
New Orleans Police Department are GRANTED for the reasons stated
above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to all claims of Plaintiff under
federal law.

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to state any

claims under state law, an issue which the Court does not address
today, such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay All Action
Until Following Constitutional Issues are Resolved (Rec. Doc. 22)
6

is DENIED.
June 10, 2015
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7