Draper v. Citty et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 8 defendants' Motion to Dismiss and 9 defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this action (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/4/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRUCE DRAPER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM CITTY (C.O.P.) and CITY
OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-942-M

ORDER
Before the Court are defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed November 20, 2014, and
defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, filed November 21, 2014. On December 1, 2014, plaintiff
filed his response. Defendants move this Court to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint, asserting, in part,
that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides:
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1)
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s
jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2)
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3)
a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in
the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Additionally, regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the United States Supreme Court has held:
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. 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that
are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 679 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, “[a] pleading that offers labels
and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. at
678 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, “[a] court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint presumes all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiff has not
set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the
Court finds that plaintiff has not set forth sufficient factual allegations that defendants are
responsible for the operation of the Oklahoma County Jail and the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s office
such that defendants would be liable for the misconduct alleged in the Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 8] and
Amended Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 9] and DISMISSES this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2015.