Anderson v. Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing the defendant's 14 Renewed Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint and this civil action are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; the plaintiff's 16 Letter-Form Motion for Hearing is DENIED; the Clerk is directed to remove this civil action from the docket of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on 3/30/2018. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (kp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
KENNETH M. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-08079

KANAWHA VALLEY REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for final
disposition pursuant to the consent of the parties (ECF No. 8). Pending before the court
are the defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) and the plaintiff’s LetterForm Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 16).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 23, 2017, the undersigned denied the defendant, Kanawha Valley
Regional Transportation’s (“KRT”) initial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) and granted the
plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint in an attempt to cure deficiencies as set forth
in the undersigned’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 12). On April 21, 2017,
the plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13). Thereafter, the defendant filed a
Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) and a Memorandum of Law in support thereof
(ECF No. 15). In response, the plaintiff filed a Letter-Form Motion for Hearing (ECF No.
16). The defendant filed a response (ECF No. 17) stating that it does not oppose the
plaintiff’s request for a hearing.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by
attorneys, and the court is obliged to construe liberally such complaints. However, in Bell
Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), the Supreme Court observed that a
case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if,
viewing the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” While the complaint need not assert “detailed factual
allegations,” it must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555.
The Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Twombly in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662 (2009), a civil rights case. The Court wrote:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice. [Twombly, 550 U.S.] at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (Although for the
purposes of a motion to dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, we “are not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation marks
omitted). Rule 8 . . . does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff
armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that
states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id., at 556.
***
In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to
dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are
no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
556 U.S. at 678-79.
2

ANALYSIS
The plaintiff’s Amended Complaint again contends that “I stand at the designated
bus stop and drivers pass on by as if I am not there! I call in to report this misconduct
and nothing happens – it continues.” (ECF No. 13 at 1). The Amended Complaint further
reiterates the plaintiff’s allegation that he was the victim of an “attempted murder” by a
bus driver over a year ago (but does not provide any specific details concerning this
incident). (Id.) The plaintiff then speculates that the defendant has “minimalized what
these drivers are doing” “because I’m a black man” and “my life has no value to anyone
with such racist opinions.” (Id. at 2). The plaintiff further asserts that “KRT management
knows the identity of the driver that committed these acts” and “[t]heir pretend ignorance
of the identity of their names is a convenient excuse, a cop-out to dodge their
responsibility to punish these drivers!!!” (Id.) Thus, the plaintiff ultimately alleges that
“KRT is responsible for the conduct or . . . misconduct of their drivers!” (Id. at 3).
The defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss contends that the plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint, like the original Complaint “provides virtually nothing to put KRT fairly on
notice of why it is being sued. It is nothing more than a list of recitals and conclusory
statements, lacking any factual allegations of any credibility whatsoever.” (ECF No. 15 at
2). Similar to the initial Complaint, the Amended Complaint lacks “names of KRT
personnel who were involved in the allegations, what events were to have occurred, dates,
locations, or manner that something happened.” (Id.) The defendant further argues that
the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not conform to the format set forth in Rule 10 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as previously ordered by the court. (Id. at 2-3).
The defendant’s Memorandum of Law further asserts:

3

While longer than the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint
again is a series of conclusory statements that provide little in the way of
detail. It appears to claim some form of continuing tort, and alleges that the
drivers do not stop, but does not explain how this is a violation of any law.
Document 13 at 1. It references the alleged attempted murder and names a
witness but does not state a location where it occurred, an approximate date
of the incident, who the alleged perpetrator was, how the attempted murder
occurred, or how KRT is legally responsible for the alleged incident. Id.
Plaintiff next claims he is being racially discriminated against,
presumably under the same statute, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.,1 stating that he has made several complaints to
KRT management. Document 13 at 2. Again, no supporting information,
such as to whom the complaints were made, what the incidents were, where
the incidents occurred, or anything else useful to make this case legally
sufficient is provided. Id.
Finally, on page 3, Plaintiff makes a statement of law, stating that
KRT is responsible for the conduct of its drivers. Document 13 at 3. This,
an incomplete recitation of respondeat superior, is the only legal claim
contained in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff completes his Amended
Complaint by alleging emotional distress, a form of damages. Id.
(ECF No. 15 at 2-3). Thus, the defendant asserts, even taking the plaintiff’s allegations
therein together as true, the Amended Complaint fails to provide sufficient factual
support to state a plausible racial discrimination claim against KRT or any of its
employees.
“The Complaint must contain as many facts as are necessary to propel the claim
across ‘the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Piasecki v.
Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 2:08-cv-01302, 2009 WL 8626849 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 20,
2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Moreover, as noted by the defendant, the

Title VI provides that “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The defendant’s
Memorandum of Law in support of its Renewed Motion to Dismiss confirms that KRT receives substantial
federal financial assistance. (ECF No. 15 at 4 n.2). Thus, it is presumed that KRT is an entity subject to the
requirements of Title VI.

1

4

Supreme Court has proscribed a practice of allowing an insufficiently pled complaint to
proceed into discovery “in the hope that the necessary supporting details are brought
forth during that process.” (ECF No. 15 at 5) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 684-685).2 The
plaintiff’s Letter-Form Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 16), filed in lieu of a response to the
Renewed Motion to Dismiss, does not contain any basis for the hearing or argument as to
why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. As noted above, the Rule 12(b)(6)
standard requires the court to rule on the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint, as
stated, taking as true the factual allegations made by the plaintiff therein.
The undersigned FINDS that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is insufficient to
give rise to a plausible claim of race discrimination, or any other claim that would be
actionable in this federal court, and that there is no basis for a hearing as requested by
the plaintiff. Despite being granted leave to file his Amended Complaint, and being
specifically instructed concerning the level of detail necessary to overcome the
deficiencies of his initial Complaint, nothing in the facts presented in the Amended
Complaint gives rise to a plausible inference of discrimination based upon race and the
plaintiff’s allegations therein are, once again, largely threadbare legal conclusions.
Accordingly, the undersigned FINDS that the Amended Complaint fails to allege
a plausible claim for relief and, thus, it should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and
the dictates of Twombly and Iqbal.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the

defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED and the Amended
Complaint and this civil action are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.3 It is further

The defendant mistakenly cited this case as Twombly.
The Court FINDS that this matter is not appropriate for dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, as alternatively argued by the defendant.
2
3

5

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Letter-Form Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 16) is
DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to remove this civil action from the docket of the court, to
mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the plaintiff, and to transmit a
copy to counsel of record.
ENTER:

March 30, 2018

6