Jeter v. City of Birmingham, No. 2:2020cv00470 - Document 13 (N.D. Ala. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City's motion to dismiss the complaint. First, the court DENIES the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Ci ty's motion to dismiss the request for punitive damages. Although Mr. Jeter's complaint is certainly short, the court does not find it so vague or ambiguous that the City cannot reasonably respond to it. Accordingly, the court DENIES the request order a more definite statement. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 5/27/2020. (KEK)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jeter v. City of Birmingham Doc. 13 FILED 2020 May-27 PM 12:25 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION KIREEM J JETER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, Defendant. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 2:20-cv-00470-ACA MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Defendant City of Birmingham’s motion to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff Kireem Jeter, proceeding pro se, alleges that the City of Birmingham violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 by refusing him service at the Birmingham courthouse until after he moved out of a handicap parking spot because, despite his handicap parking decal, he “didn’t look handicap[ped].” (Doc. 1 at 5). Mr. Jeter seeks $300,000 in punitive and compensatory damages. (Id.). The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City’s motion to dismiss the complaint. First, the court DENIES the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege facts showing “(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public Dockets.Justia.com entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that the exclusion, denial of benefit, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.” Bircoll v. Miami-Dade Cty., 480 F.3d 1072, 1083 (11th Cir. 2007). Mr. Jeter has alleged that he has a disability, but that based on his appearance, Birmingham officials denied him access to both a handicap parking spot and the city courthouse until he moved his car out of the spot he was entitled to park in. That is sufficient to state a claim under the ADA at the dismissal stage. Next, the City appears to argue that because it cannot tell whether Mr. Jeter is proceeding under a theory of intentional discrimination, disparate impact, or failure to make reasonable accommodation, the court should dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 7 at 4). The court disagrees. It is clear that Mr. Jeter’s complaint asserts only a claim for intentional discrimination under Title II. (See generally Doc. 1). Third, the City argues that Mr. Jeter cannot obtain an award of punitive damages against it. (Doc. 7 at 5–6). Here, the court agrees with the City. Punitive damages are unavailable in a suit under Title II of the ADA. Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 189 (2002). Accordingly, the court GRANTS the City’s motion to dismiss the request for punitive damages. Finally, the City asks in passing that this court order Mr. Jeter “to provide a more definite statement for each count and which statute is allegedly being violated 2 under each.” (Doc. 7 at 6). Federal Rule of 12 permits a party to move for a more definite statement if the pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Although Mr. Jeter’s complaint is certainly short, the court does not find it so vague or ambiguous that the City cannot reasonably respond to it. Accordingly, the court DENIES the request order a more definite statement. DONE and ORDERED this May 27, 2020. _________________________________ ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
