Evans v. Regional Transit Authority

Filing 15

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's 13 motion is GRANTED and thatthe Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/21/2017. (mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TYNISKI EVANS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-3995

REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY

SECTION “B”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Considering the foregoing “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

Rule

12

(b)(1),

or

In

the

Alternative, Rule 12 (b)(6) Submitted on Behalf of Reginal Transit
Authority” (Rec. Doc. 13) and the opposition thereto (Rec Doc.
14),
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and that
the Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to
move for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Such a motion is rarely granted
because it is viewed with disfavor. See Lowrey v. Tex. A & M Univ.
Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir.1997) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum &
Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050
(5th Cir. 1982)).
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all
well-pleaded

facts

as

true

and

view

them

in

the

light

most

favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190,
1

196 (5th Cir. 1996). However, “[f]actual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “To survive a motion
to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its

face.”

Gonzales

2009)(quoting

v.

Ashcroft

Kay,
v.

577

F.3d

Iqbal,

129

600,

603

S.Ct.

(5th
1937,

Cir.
1949

(2009))(internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court in
Iqbal explained that Twombly promulgated a “two-pronged approach”
to determine whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. First, courts must identify those
pleadings that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are
not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. Legal conclusions
“must

be

supported

by

factual

allegations.”

Id.

“Threadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 1949.
Upon identifying the well-pleaded factual allegations, courts
“assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement of relief.” Id. at 1950. 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. at 1949. This
is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw

on

its

judicial

experience
2

and

common

sense.”

Id.

The

plaintiffs

must

“nudge[]

their

claims

across

the

line

from

conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Plaintiff’s

one

paragraph

complaint

does

not

allege

sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against the Regional
Transit Authority (Rec. Doc. 1). The complaint does not plead
enough facts to raise the Plaintiff’s right to relief to a level
that is beyond mere speculation. Though she makes claims of sexual
harassment she does not allege any particular perpetuator or the
date or time of the alleged incident. In Plaintiff’s opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss she provides a few additional details such
as the date of the incident, however her complaint is still
factually deficient. The complaint does not contain sufficient
facts to successful state a claim against the Regional Transit
Authority (Rec. Doc. 14). Consequently, the Plaintiff’s complaint
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE1.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of February, 2017.

__________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff alleges a health disability impairs her
to present more information about her claim. However, she
to a date and claims to have reported to police incidents
unknown RTA employees. If she produces those reports in a
filed motion, we could consider reopening this case.
1

3

ability
refers
with
timely