B.D. v. Griggs et al

Filing 28

SECOND ROSEBORO ORDER that plaintiff respond to re 23 MOTION to Dismiss 12(b)(6), ( Responses due by 3/29/2010) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on March 16, 2010. (jhg)

Download PDF
I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA A S H E V IL L E DIVISION 1 :0 9 cv 4 3 9 B . D. By her parent, Heidi Dragomir, P la in tiff, V s. J A N A GRIGGS; MARY WATSON; A L E X A POSNY; JULIAN MANN III; G E O R G E MILLER; and BUNCOMBE C O U N T Y BOARD OF EDUCATION, D efen d an ts. _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SEC O ND RO SEBO RO ORDER T H I S MATTER is before the court on defendants the Buncombe County B o ard of Education's and Jana Griggs' Motion to Dismiss (#23). Plaintiff is p ro c ee d in g pro se and will be advised of her obligation to respond and the time for d o in g so. In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), p la in tiff, who is proceeding pro se, is cautioned that these defendants have filed a M o tio n to Dismiss contending that she has failed to state a cause of action against th e m . Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for dismissal where a party has failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law. This language means th a t in responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff must show that she has made -1- s u ff ic ie n t allegations to support a cause of action against such defendants that is re c o g n iz e d by law. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the C o u rt held that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege fa cts in her complaint that "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id., at 555. [A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitle[ment] to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic re c ita tio n of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . . Id. (second alteration in original; citation omitted). Further, a complaint will not s u rv iv e Rule 12(b)(6) review where it contains "naked assertion[s] devoid of further fa c tu a l enhancement." Id., at 557. Instead, a plaintiff must now plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is "plausible on its face." Id., at 570 (emphasis added). T h e court again visited the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U .S . ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (May 18, 2009). In Ashcroft, the Court held that Rule 8 " d em an d s more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id ., S.Ct., at 1949. The Court explained that, "to survive a motion to dismiss, a c o m p la in t must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to r e lie f that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (citing Twombly, supra; emphasis added). W h a t is plausible is defined by the Court: [a ] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads sufficient fa ctu a l content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that -2- th e defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id . This "plausibility standard" requires "more than a sheer possibility that a d e fe n d a n t has acted unlawfully." Id. Thus, a complaint falls short of the plausibility s ta n d a r d where plaintiff "pleads facts that are `merely consistent with' a defendant's lia b ility . . . ." Id. While the court accepts plausible factual allegations made in the c o m p la in t as true and considers those facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff in r u l in g on a motion to dismiss, a court "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, u n r e a s o n a b le conclusions, or arguments." Eastern Shore Mkt.'s Inc. v. J.D. Assoc.'s, L L P , 213 F. 3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). Finally, plaintiff is advised that she has until March 29, 2010, to file her re s p o n s e , and that such response must be served on all the other parties, and that she m u s t include a certificate of service indicating the manner in which she served such p a r tie s . ORDER I T IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff respond to defendants' M o tio n to Dismiss (#23) not later than March 29, 2010. -3- Signed: March 16, 2010 -4-

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?