Underwood v. City of Crystal City et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss 25 , 28 are granted, and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions 3 are denied as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 3/5/2015. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RODNEY A. UNDERWOOD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CRYSTAL CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14 CV 1259 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss.
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleging violations of the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988.
Defendants contend that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). I agree. “To survive a motion to dismiss [under 12(b)(6) ], a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
A complaint is facially plausible where its factual content “allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. The plaintiff must plead facts that show more than a mere speculation or
possibility that the defendant acted unlawfully. Id.; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While the Court accepts the complaint’s factual
allegations as true, it is not required to accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. While “pro se
complaints are to be construed liberally,” the Court “will not supply additional
facts, nor will [it] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have
not been pleaded.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989)).
Here, plaintiff’s complaint contains no factual allegations – let alone legally
sufficient ones – that would permit the Court to conclude that plaintiff has stated
claims against any defendants. Under the section of his complaint entitled “Facts,”
plaintiff merely alleges that “exhibits and affidavits of facts of all defendants
paperwork number in order of the defendants listed on page one 3 through 13
incorporated herein by reference.” Plaintiff then attaches what appear to be copies
of municipal citations and other state court documents to his complaint. Plaintiff
provides no explanation of what these documents are or how they relate to this
case. More importantly, plaintiff provides no factual allegations of any kind
relating to any defendants. The Court has no idea what plaintiff is complaining
about or how any of these defendants allegedly violated any of his federally
protected rights. The Court is not required to supply facts where none exist or
2

construct legal theories for plaintiff based on random documents attached to a
complaint. Stone, 364 F.3d at 914. Rote conclusory allegations that plaintiff’s
rights were violated are insufficient to state claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. For this reason, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed.1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motions to dismiss [#25, 28]
are granted, and plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions [#3] are
denied as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered this same date.

_______________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of March, 2015.

1

Plaintiff’s complaint is also subject to dismissal for the additional reasons stated by defendants
in their unopposed motions to dismiss.
3