Logan v. Parks et al, No. 2:2020cv02142 - Document 23 (W.D. Ark. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Mercy Medical Center Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by ICU Head Nurse, Mercy Medical Center; 8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company; 11 MOTION to Dismiss by Farm Bureau Bank, William Hileman; 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Attorney General of Arkansas; 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Chrysler Capital; 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Social Security Administration. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on October 8, 2020. (mll) Modified docket text on 10/8/2020. (mll)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Logan v. Parks et al Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION GLICENIA C. LOGAN v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:20-CV-02142 MR. KELVIN L PARKS, et al. DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Glicenia C. Logan filed a pro se complaint. (Doc. 1). She named numerous Defendants. Many of those Defendants have filed motions (Docs. 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 20) to dismiss. These motions raise various grounds for dismissal—lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court need not reach each of these issues because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and must be dismissed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to include factual allegations that, accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). This Rule “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. Its purpose is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “Though pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s complaint cites numerous statutes and legal principles, but fails to allege facts that give any Defendant fair notice of the grounds for any of her claims. None of her allegations gives rise even to a reasonable inference that a defendant acted, or did not act, in a way that caused 1 Dockets.Justia.com the injuries she claims. Plaintiff is aware from other cases in this Court that have been dismissed for the same reason that she must meet this pleading standard and allege some factual basis for her claims. She is reminded that “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer.” Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 binds her just as it binds attorneys. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Because she knows a complaint must include factual allegations giving rise to a claim for relief, Plaintiff should be aware that filing a complaint without factual allegations unnecessarily delays and increases the cost of litigation. Plaintiff is therefore put on notice that failing to make any factual allegations in a future complaint may result in the perfunctory dismissal of that complaint as a Rule 11(c) sanction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 20) are GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of October, 2020. /s/P. K. Holmes, ΙΙΙ P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
