Royal v. Emerson-Gomez et al

Filing 18

ORDER. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Specifically, Plaintiff's federal claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 03/27/2024. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TONY ROYAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY EMERSON-GOMEZ et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-23-468-G

ORDER
Plaintiff Tony Royal, appearing pro se, brings this civil action against two
defendants. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Upon review, the Court dismisses the Complaint.
I.

Standard of Review

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (see Doc. No. 3), the Court is
obligated to conduct an initial review of the Complaint and may dismiss the pleading at
any time if the Court finds it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it lacks
factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (footnote and citation omitted). Bare
legal conclusions in a complaint are not entitled to the assumption of truth: “they must be
supported by factual allegations” to state a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 679 (2009). Whether a complaint contains sufficient facts to avoid dismissal is
context-specific and is determined through a court’s application of “judicial experience and
common sense.” Id.
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted where it is “patently obvious” that the plaintiff cannot prevail
on the facts alleged and amendment of the pleading would be futile. McKinney v. Okla.,
Dep’t of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991); see Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d
1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (“We apply the same standard of review for dismissals under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) that we employ for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”). “[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal
training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts
if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Whitney v. New Mexico,
113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that although courts construe pro se
pleadings liberally they “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a
plaintiff’s complaint”).
II.

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges that in May of 2023, he was involved in several interactions and
disagreements with Defendant Edward L. Gaylord Downtown YMCA (“YMCA”) and
Defendant Mary Emerson-Gomez, the YMCA’s District Membership Director.

See

Compl. at 2; id. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 1-1). Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ unlawful conduct
during these incidents caused him mental and emotional distress. See Compl. Ex. 1.
2

Plaintiff brings a federal civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation
of his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See id.; see also Am.
Compl. at 3. He also raises multiple causes of action under Oklahoma law. See Am.
Compl. Ex. 1.
Section 1983 is the “remedial vehicle for raising claims based on the violation of
[federal] constitutional rights.” Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.9 (10th Cir.
2016). To succeed on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show “the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States” and that the violation “was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988); see 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Even liberally construed, the allegations of the pleading do not plausibly reflect that
either Defendant YMCA or Defendant Emerson-Gomez is a state actor or committed any
of the cited conduct while “acting under color of state law.” West, 487 U.S. at 48. To the
contrary, the Complaint most reasonably establishes that one defendant is a private entity
and the other an employee of that private entity. See Compl. at 2; Compl. Ex. 1; see also
About Us, YMCA of Greater Oklahoma City, https://ymcaokc.org/areas-of-impact (last
visited Mar. 27, 2024) (“The YMCA of Greater Oklahoma City is a 501(C)(3) Non-Profit
Organization.”). It follows that Plaintiff has not stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim
upon which relief can be granted, and dismissal is required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
With Plaintiff’s federal claim dismissed, the Court considers its jurisdiction to
consider Plaintiff’s remaining claims, which are premised upon violation of Oklahoma law.
3

“Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and a basis of federal jurisdiction
must be affirmatively pleaded.” Gilmore-Bey ex rel. L’Evation Birthing Circles Ministries
v. Coleman, No. CIV-23-1152-D, 2023 WL 8850761, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 21, 2023);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears
“the burden of alleging the facts essential to show jurisdiction.” U.S. ex rel. Stone v.
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 282 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Plaintiff’s pleading—which indicates that he is an Oklahoma resident suing an
Oklahoma entity and another Oklahoma resident—does not evince a basis for this Court to
exercise diversity jurisdiction over this matter. See Compl. at 1-2. Further, “[w]hen all
federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise
jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City
Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Accordingly, the Court
declines to proceed with the remaining state-law claims.1
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Specifically, Plaintiff’s federal claim is dismissed for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

1

Plaintiff has submitted a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 13),
but none of the amendments proposed by Plaintiffs would affect the analysis herein.
4

All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. A separate judgment shall be
entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2024.

5