Bordock v. Eufaula City of et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White granting Motion to Dismiss of Defendant City of Eufaula ( 17 Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to State a Claim) and terminating City of Eufaula as party defendant (lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Laurie Bordock,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CIV-571-RAW

City of Eufaula, Oklahoma and
County of McIntosh,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant City of Eufaula [Docket No.
17], which was filed on January 24, 2017. This case was filed on December 19, 2016 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The case was
transferred to this court on December 22, 2016 [Docket No. 5].
Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this matter. The court construes liberally the
pleadings of all pro se litigants. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
On January 31, 2017, the court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint to provide additional factual averments to vitiate Defendant’s claims
of insufficiency [Docket No. 18]. To date, no amended complaint has been filed.
Additionally, on March 16, 2017, the court entered an order directing Plaintiff to
file a response to the pending Motion to Dismiss no later than April 7, 2017, or the motion
would be deemed confessed [Docket No. 22]. To date, no pleading has been filed.
1

On January 20, 2017, the Clerk of this court returned three letters from the Plaintiff,
stating they were not in proper format for filing [Docket No. 16]. Another letter was
returned to Plaintiff on February 8, 2017 [Docket No. 20]. Since that time, Plaintiff has
continued to mail letters to the Clerk of the Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Those letters were forwarded to this court. Unfortunately, the letters are hand-written and
difficult to decipher.1
The court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint
and view those allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Nixon v. City and
County of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1368 (10th Cir.2015). Plaintiff is not required to
establish a prima facie case in the complaint, but is only required to allege enough factual
allegations to set forth a plausible claim. Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143,
1172 (10th Cir.2015). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not met the applicable pleading standard. In
general, “Rule 8(a)(2) still lives. . . Under Rule 8, specific facts are not necessary; the
statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the ground
upon which it rests.” Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143, 1172 (10th
Cir.2015)(internal brackets omitted; quoting Khalik v. United States, 671 F.3d 1188,

1 This is the fourth case that Plaintiff has filed in this district. See Bordock v. Arrowhead Mall, Case No.
10-CIV-186-RAW; Bordock v. City of Sallisaw, et al., Case No. 12-CIV-508-JHP; and Bordock v. City of Poteau,
Case No. 14-CIV-399-JHP. All of Plaintiff’s pleadings in these cases have been hand-written and almost illegible.

2

1191-92 (10th Cir.2012)). On the other hand, complaints are not sufficient “that are no
more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1191.
In a case against multiple defendants, “it is particularly important . . . that the
complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each
individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her, as distinguished
from collective allegations . . . .” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247, 1248 (10th
Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). Otherwise, the complaint would fail to provide fair
notice and to present a plausible right to relief.
The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted as to Defendant City of Eufaula. Specifically, Plaintiff has pled no facts from
which a plausible claim of false arrest can be inferred. Also, no facts have been pled that
the City of Eufaula operates or maintains the McIntosh County Jail; therefore, no plausible
claim of responsibility for jail conditions has been stated. The Motion to Dismiss [Docket
No. 17] is GRANTED.
Dated this 10th day of May, 2017.

_________________________________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

3