KHAN v. ATLANTIC CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 1/6/2017. (TH, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Doc. No. 8)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil No. 16-2780 (RBK/KMW)
ATLANTIC CITY PUBLIC
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Complaint of Plaintiff Irfan Khan (“Plaintiff”),
pro se, against Defendant Atlantic City Public Library (“Defendant”), asserting claims for
discrimination based on gender, national origin, and religion. Currently before the Court is
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 8). For the reasons expressed below, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff asserts that the ACPL refused to reissue Plaintiff a replacement library card for
discriminatory reasons based on gender, national origin, and religion. Compl. 3. He also alleges
that ACPL librarians made a profane comment to him and asked him, in a nasty tone, if he had
an address. Id. He seeks monetary relief for mental anguish and emotional distress, in addition to
reissuance of his library card. Id. On May 17, 2016, he filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1), and on
August 12, 2016, Defendant brought the present Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8).
Where a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the plaintiff generally bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States,
220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000). A district court has subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331; or jurisdiction supplemental to the original claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
“courts accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff
may be entitled to relief.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). A complaint survives a
motion to dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). It
is not for courts to decide at this point whether the non-moving party will succeed on the merits,
but “whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their
claims.” In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2002). While
“detailed factual allegations” are not necessary, a “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of
his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations
omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009).
Plaintiff does not reference any federal constitutional provisions, laws, or treaties under
which he is bringing this matter. Further, he fails to plead citizenship of the parties and appears
to be a citizen of the same state, New Jersey, as Defendant. As such, the Court will grant the
Motion to Dismiss for failure to show subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). In
addition, Plaintiff also fails to meet the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Plaintiff does not provide facts
substantiating his allegation that the ACPL declined to reissue his library card based on his
gender, national origin, and religion. It is also unclear what types of claims he is bringing to
remedy the harassment he allegedly suffered from ACPL.
District courts should freely grant leave to amend, “unless amendment would be
inequitable or futile.” Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
Because there is a possibility Plaintiff could amend the Complaint to properly plead subject
matter jurisdiction and make out a plausible claim, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United State District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?