Anderson v. Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority, No. 2:2016cv08079 - Document 12 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice defendant's 3 Motion to Dismiss; the plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies addressed more fully herein; the plaintiff is NOTIFI ED that it will be insufficient for him to simply refer to his prior Complaint or additional documentation, or to incorporate the same by reference in the Amended Complaint; the Amended Complaint will supersede the original Complaint, and there must be one integrated document that will provide the defendant with notice of the plaintiff's claims and factual allegations; and as further Notified and set forth more fully herein; the plaintiff's Amended Complaint to be filed by 4/24/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley on 3/23/2017. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Anderson v. Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority Doc. 12 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA CH ARLESTON KEN N ETH M. AN D ERSON , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 2 :16 -cv-0 8 0 79 KAN AW H A VALLEY REGION AL TRAN SPORTATION AU TH ORITY, D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION AN D ORD ER This m atter is assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate J udge for final disposition pursuant to the consent of the parties (ECF No. 8). Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Dism iss Com plaint (ECF No. 3). PROCED U RAL H ISTORY On August 23, 20 16, the defendant rem oved this civil action to this court from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County based on federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s one-page Com plaint alleges as follows: This lawsuit is being filed against Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority because certain drivers em ployed by KVRTA have continuously vi[o]lated m y rights. Ten m onths ago a driver m ade an attem pt to m urder m e with the bus he was driving! Sim ply stated, I charge KVRTA’s drivers with overt racial discrim ination, in violation of m y rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Code. Suit am ount $ 150 ,0 0 0 . (ECF No. 1-1 at 2). On August 29, 20 16, the defendant filed a Motion to Dism iss (ECF No. 3) and a Mem orandum of Law in support thereof (ECF No. 4). The defendant’s m otion docum ents Dockets.Justia.com assert that the plaintiff’s Com plaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dism issed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Septem ber 19, 20 16, the plaintiff filed a one-page Letter-Form Response to the Motion to Dism iss (ECF No. 6), in which he requests that the court deny the m otion and sum m arily asserts that he “will swear under oath in court that the facts alledged [sic; alleged] in the Com plaint ware com pletely true an[d] valid.” (Id.) The defendant did not file a reply brief. This m atter is ripe for adjudication.1 STAN D ARD OF REVIEW Pro se com plaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys, and the court is obliged to construe liberally such com plaints. However, in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Tw om bly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (20 0 7), the Suprem e Court observed that a case should be dism issed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if, viewing the well-pleaded factual allegations in the com plaint as true and in the light m ost favorable to the plaintiff, the com plaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” While the com plaint need not assert “detailed factual allegations,” it m ust contain “m ore than labels and conclusions” or a “form ulaic recitation of the elem ents of a cause of action.” Id. at 555. The Suprem e Court elaborated on its holding in Tw om bly in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (20 0 9), a civil rights case. The Court wrote: Two working principles underlie our decision in Tw om bly . First, the tenet that a court m ust accept as true all of the allegations contained in a com plaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elem ents of a cause of action, supported by m ere conclusory statem ents, do not suffice. [Tw om bly , 550 U.S.] at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (Although for the purposes of a m otion to dism iss we m ust take all of the factual allegations 1 On J anuary 3, 20 17, the Clerk’s Office received and docketed a Notice of Change of Address from the plaintiff and updated his address on the docket sheet. 2 in the com plaint as true, we “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” (internal quotation m arks om itted). Rule 8 . . . does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff arm ed with nothing m ore than conclusions. Second, only a com plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a m otion to dism iss. Id., at 556. *** In keeping with these principles a court considering a m otion to dism iss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no m ore than conclusions, are not entitled to the assum ption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the fram ework of a com plaint, they m ust be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assum e their veracity and then determ ine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlem ent to relief. 556 U.S. at 678-79. AN ALYSIS The defendant’s Motion to Dism iss contends that the plaintiff’s Com plaint contains nothing m ore than a conclusory, unsupported allegation of discrim ination or possibly som e other unspecified intentional tort or negligence. As further noted in the defendant’s Mem orandum : The Com plaint is required to provide at least som e factual allegations of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and “propel the claim into the realm of the plausible.” [Piasecki v. W al-Mart Stores East, LP, Civil Action No. 2:0 8cv-0 130 1, 20 0 9 WL 8626849 *1 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 20 , 20 0 9)]. As it now stands, this Com plaint fails to allege even what Plaintiff’s injuries are, if any. (ECF No. 4 at 4). The Mem orandum further asserts as follows: There are only three (3) full sentences in the Com plaint. The first alleges that unspecified KRT drivers have continuously violated Plaintiff’s rights. Who the drivers are, what they allegedly did, where this happened, when it happened, and in what m anner, all go unsaid. The second sentence is equally unavailing. It alleges an attem pted vehicular hom icide. Again, no details are given other than a vague reference to ten (10 ) m onths ago, presum ably som etim e in October 20 15. Certainly there is no detail that would put KRT on fair notice as to what they are supposed to defend against []. 3 The final sentence is an unsupported allegation of racial discrim ination and a reference to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The allegation does not even recite the legal elem ents of the claim , leaving KRT to guess as to what parts of a quite lengthy statute they are to respond to. (Id. at 2). The plaintiff’s Response sum m arily asserts that he will swear to the validity of the facts alleged in the Com plaint, and in no way contests the defendant’s assertion that his race discrim ination claim is insufficiently pled. (ECF No. 6). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 d et seq., 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 discrim ination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 20 0 0 d. At the outset, the plaintiff’s Com plaint does not even allege that Kanawha Valley Regional Transportation Authority (“KRT”) is a program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. However, even assum ing that KRT is an entity to which Title VI applies, the plaintiff’s Com plaint is devoid of sufficient facts to establish a plausible violation of Title VI by KRT or any individuals em ployed thereby. As noted by the defendant, the Com plaint fails to allege any specific facts concerning what KRT drivers have discrim inated against him , how such drivers allegedly discrim inated against him , when such discrim ination allegedly occurred and how he has been injured by such alleged discrim ination. At m ost, the attachm ents to the Com plaint indicate that the plaintiff lodged a com plaint concerning an incident on March 12, 20 16, that allegedly occurred between 7:50 and 8:0 0 p.m ., on route # 21, involving bus # 40 6, during which the driver’s children allegedly m ade a com m ent directed to the plaintiff that was not overtly racial in nature. The plaintiff’s com plaint alleged as follows: 4 On 3/ 12/ 16 at approxim ately 7:50 -8:0 0 I boarded bust # 40 6, the driver’s 2 children were on the bus. The daughter was polite – the son gave m e a look – a glower that told m e that I disgusted him . Four or 6 m inutes later he said som ething to his sister, chiding her for sm iling at every “retard” that got on the bus. This insult was indirectly given to m e. I was the only passenger on the bus. I didn’t say anything then, but the next tim e I surely will. (ECF No. 1, Attach. 1 at 4-5). A second attachm ent to the Com plaint addresses a com plaint m ade by the plaintiff concerning an incident that occurred at approxim ately 7:10 p.m . on J uly 18, 20 16, during which Nitro bus # 3, which was allegedly operated by an “unknown white m ale” allegedly drove by the plaintiff without stopping. That com plaint docum ent further states: I was standing adjacent to Beatrice and West Washington St. The Nitro bus was going east into the transit m all. This drive[r] clearly saw m e standing there with the fare in m y right hand. He slowed down and looked at m e but kept on going and not stopping. I know that he saw m e standing but ignored m e. This happened in another location 3 weeks ago. (Id. at 6). Even incorporating the facts contained in these attachm ents as part of the Com plaint, and accepting them as true as the court m ust when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) m otion, the undersigned FIN D S that the plaintiff’s Com plaint is insufficient to give rise to a plausible claim of race discrim ination, or any other claim actionable in this federal court. Nothing in the facts presented gives rise to a plausible inference of discrim ination based upon race and the plaintiff’s allegations are largely threadbare legal conclusions. However, the undersigned notes that “the Fourth Circuit has stated that a court should consider granting plaintiffs, particularly pro se plaintiffs, leave to am end if it dism isses a com plaint based on [Rule] 12(b)(6).” Sm ith v. Virginia, No. 3:0 8cv80 0 , 20 0 9 5 WL 2175759, at *9 (E.D. Va. J uly 16, 20 0 9) (citing Ostrzenski v. Seigel, 177 F.3d 245, 252– 53 (4th Cir.1999)). Am endm ent should be refused only if it appears to a certainty that plaintiff cannot state a claim . The better practice is to allow at least one amendm ent regardless of how unprom ising the initial pleading appears because except in unusual circum stances it is unlikely that the court will be able to determ ine conclusively on the face of a defective pleading whether plaintiff actually can state a claim . Ostrzenski, 177 F.3d at 253. Under this authority, it is hereby ORD ERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dism iss (ECF No. 3) is D EN IED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE. It is further ORD ERED that the plaintiff is granted leave to file an Am ended Com plaint in an attem pt to cure the deficiencies addressed herein. The plaintiff is hereby N OTIFIED that it will be insufficient for him to sim ply refer to his prior Com plaint or additional docum entation, or to incorporate the sam e by reference in the Am ended Com plaint. The Am ended Com plaint will supersede the original Com plaint, and there m ust be o n e in te gra te d d o cu m e n t that will provide the defendant with notice of the plaintiff’s claim s and factual allegations. The plaintiff is further N OTIFIED that, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he should include a caption of the case with the nam es of all of the parties, and he should state his claim s in num bered paragraphs, “each lim ited as far as practicable to a single set of circum stances,” and each type of claim , if m ore than one, should be set out in a separate count, to prom ote clarity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 . It is hereby ORD ERED that the plaintiff’s Am ended Com plaint shall be filed by Ap ril 2 4 , 2 0 17. The Clerk is directed to m ail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff and to transm it a copy to counsel of record. ENTER: March 23, 20 17 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
