Dean v. United States Department of Highways et al, No. 2:2017cv07672 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's claim against the City of New Orleans is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/5/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dean v. United States Department of Highways et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DARRYL DEAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-7672 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL. SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendant the City of New Orleans moves to dism iss Plaintiff Darryl Dean’s Am ericans with Disabilities Act claim . 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of an alleged violation of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff Darryl Dean is a disabled veteran and retired police sergeant. On August 10 , 20 16, plaintiff hit “a severely large waterfilled pothole” while driving down Moss Street in New Orleans. 2 Plaintiff alleges that the collision dam aged his car and injured his back. 3 Plaintiff then 1 2 3 R. Doc. 7. R. Doc. 1 at 6. Id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com called 911, which he asserts “neglectfully m ishandled the call.”4 Em ergency assistance never arrived, so plaintiff sought m edical attention on his own. 5 Plaintiff sued the City of New Orleans and the United States on August 10 , 20 17. 6 The City of New Orleans now m oves to dism iss for failure to state a claim . 7 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dism iss, a plaintiff m ust plead enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (20 0 9) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Tw om bly , 550 U.S. 544, 547 (20 0 7)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. A court m ust accept all well-pleaded facts as true and m ust draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lorm and v. U.S. Unw ired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 239, 244 (5th Cir. 20 0 9). But the Court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 4 5 6 7 Id. Id. Id. at 7. R. Doc. 7. 2 A legally sufficient com plaint m ust establish m ore than a “sheer possibility” that the plaintiff’s claim is true. Id. It need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it m ust go beyond labels, legal conclusions, or form ulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 555. In other words, the face of the com plaint m ust contain enough factual m atter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each elem ent of the plaintiff’s claim. Lorm and, 565 F.3d at 257. If there are insufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 555, or if it is apparent from the face of the com plaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (20 0 7); Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 n.9 (5th Cir. 20 0 7), the claim m ust be dism issed. III. D ISCU SSION In his com plaint, plaintiff appears to allege that defendants violated Title II of the ADA. Title II of the ADA prohibits disability discrim ination in the provision of public services. See Fram e v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 20 11) (en banc). Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the 3 services, program s, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrim ination by any such entity.” Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under this statute. Plaintiff does not allege that the City of New Orleans treated him differently than others because of his disability. While he does allege that the 911 dispatcher negligently handled the call, he does not assert that this negligent treatment was based on his disability. Nor does he allege that the pothole rendered Moss Street inaccessible. Cf. Fram e v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 227 (5th Cir. 20 11) (“When a city decides to build or alter a sidewalk and m akes that sidewalk inaccessible to individuals with disabilities without adequate justification, disabled individuals are denied the benefits of that city’s services, program s, or activities.”). Although the Court construes plaintiff’s com plaint broadly because of his pro se status, see Davison v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 712 F.3d 884, 885 (5th Cir. 20 13), the Court cannot discern from plaintiff’s pleadings any possible examples of disability-based discrim ination in violation of Title II of the ADA. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim against the City of New Orleans m ust be dism issed. 4 IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s m otion to dism iss. Plaintiff’s claim against the City of New Orleans is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE. 5th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5
]]>
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.
