Rankin v. American Electric Power

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on January 30, 2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
LYNCHBURG DIVISION
DEBORAH K. RANKIN,

CASE NO. 6:14-cv-00047
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, D/B/A
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER,
Defendant.

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Deborah Rankin (“Plaintiff” or “Rankin”) filed this action against Defendant
Appalachian Power Company, doing business as American Electric Power (“Defendant” or
“AEP”), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). This matter is now
before me on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant, in which it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because Plaintiff’s complaint
contains no facts supporting a claim under the ADA, I will grant Defendant’s motion.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges the following: over a year ago, her landlord refused to “repair/service the
heat pump in her former residence.” Without a heat pump, Rankin was forced to use multiple
fans and heaters to cool and heat her home. The use of such devices caused a dramatic increase
in her electricity expenses, and as a result of her inability to pay such costs, Plaintiff entered into
a monthly “budget plan” with her electricity provider: AEP. Eventually, Plaintiff’s electricity
bill became due in full, and because Plaintiff could not satisfy her debt, AEP terminated her

electricity services. Following that event, Rankin moved to a new residence and again attempted
to obtain electricity from AEP. AEP refused to do so in light of Plaintiff’s unpaid debt. Rankin
now seeks an emergency hearing and an order requiring Defendant to restore her electricity.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint . . . [I]t
does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of
defenses.” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). A court
considering dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) must take the facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Schatz v. Rosenberg, 943 F.2d 485, 489 (4th Cir. 1991). Courts are not, however,
“bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949–50 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Rather, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain enough factual
allegations to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. In
evaluating “plausibility,” the court may not rely on mere “labels and conclusions” or a plaintiff’s
“formulaic recitation of a cause of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555. Instead, the
factual allegations must be enough to raise “a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
Thus, 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.”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Moreover, in order to allow for the development of a potentially
meritorious claim, federal courts have an obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally. See,
e.g., Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (citation omitted).

Nevertheless,

“[p]rinciples requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not . . . without limits.”
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings her claim under the ADA, but she fails to identify any provision of the
ADA which Defendant has violated.

Moreover, even after liberally construing Plaintiff’s

complaint, I am unable to identify any facts which support a cause of action under the ADA.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of her complaint.
Defendant’s argument is well taken. In considering the sufficiency of a complaint on a
motion to dismiss, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit states that dismissal
is appropriate where “it appears that the plaintiff[] would not be entitled to relief under any facts
which could be proved in support of their claim.” Schatz v. Rosenberg, 943 F.2d 485, 489 (4th
Cir. 1991). Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s complaint contains no facts which support her
conclusory allegation that Defendant has violated the ADA, Plaintiff’s claim is insufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss and her complaint will therefore be dismissed.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient to state a cause
of action under the ADA. I will therefore grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket no. 6)
and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (docket no. 2). An appropriate order follows.
30th
Entered this ________ day of January, 2015.