Coleman v. Prince George's County Department of Social Service, No. 8:2009cv00213 - Document 12 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 3/8/10 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 3/8/10. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : OLIVER R. COLEMAN : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 2009-0213 : PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently disability George s pending rights County case and necessary. the is ready now Rule resolution motion by of Social Services (Paper 6). court Local for the Department Plaintiff s complaint. fully and in Defendant to this Prince dismiss The issues have been briefed rules, 105.6. no For hearing the being following deemed reasons, Defendant s motion will be granted. I. Background Plaintiff Oliver R. Coleman has three daughters: Lanika and Latrice Coleman and Trinity Quarles. Plaintiff raised Lanika and Latrice since they were born, but is engaged in an adoption case for Trinity, who is also his biological daughter. 1, at 2). Latrice, (Id.). Plaintiff [a]lthough states [he] that deals he with (Paper has raised Lanika and some mental abilities. Plaintiff contends that Defendant, the Prince George s County Department of Social Services ( PGCDSS ), has interfered with his relationship with his daughter Trinity by: 1) stating that Plaintiff is not mentally fit to raise his daughter; 2) setting up a 12-step abstinence from alcohol and psychoactive substances meeting for Plaintiff, although Plaintiff has completed that program in the past; 3) not informing Trinity that Mr. Coleman is her father; and 4) allowing Trinity to leave Maryland without informing Plaintiff. that, as a result of these alleged (Id.). Plaintiff argues actions, Defendant has discriminated against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3601 and has caused him humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, and deprivation of his Rights. (Id.). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on February 2, 2009. (Paper 1). April 21, 2009. II. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on (Paper 6). Motion to Dismiss A. Standard of Review The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff s complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th 1999). Cir. Except in certain specified cases, a plaintiff s complaint need only satisfy the simplified pleading 2 standard of Rule 8(a), Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing Fed.R.Civ.P. requires a that the 8(a)(2). is Nevertheless, showing, rather entitlement to relief. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). pleader than a entitled Rule to relief. 8(a)(2) blanket still assertion, of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. That showing must consist of more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action or naked assertion[s] Ashcroft v. Iqbal, devoid of 129 further S.Ct. 1937, factual 1949 enhancement. (2009)(internal citations omitted). In its determination, the court must consider all well-pled allegations in a complaint as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994), and must construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)). The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, Revene v. Charles County Comm rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950, or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 3 See also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th 1979). Cir. 2009). [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged, but it has not show[n] . . . that the pleader is entitled to relief. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 Thus, [d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Finally, pleadings drafted that while courts less stringent lawyers, they to by lack a cognizable generally should standards may legal than nonetheless theory Id. or hold formal dismiss that fail sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. pro se pleadings complaints to allege Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391, 398 (D.Md. 2002), aff d, 121 Fed.Appx. 9 (4th Cir. 2005)(unpublished). B. Analysis Defendant argues that Plaintiff s complaint should be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Defendant asserts that although Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, none of Plaintiff s 4 allegations amount to discrimination under federal law. (Paper 6, at 2-3). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not stated the elements for a claim under either of the federal statutes that prohibit discrimination by a government entity based on disability : Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. (Id. at 3). Defendant notes that Plaintiff has not alleged a disability or how Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of that disability. Plaintiff guardianship counters of (Paper 11, at 1). his that (Id. at 3-4). the daughter was decision based on to his deny him handicap. Plaintiff quotes from an unidentified court s Order of Commitment, dated March 30, 2009, after he filed the complaint, to describe his disability: The Court further finds that Oliver Coleman suffers from mental disabilities, including Organic Brain Traumatic Injury, Stress Borderline chronic Disorder, Intellectual disabilities. Depression, history of Functioning and chronic alcohol and severe Post- abuse and learning These disabilities affect Mr. Coleman s ability to appropriately parent [Trinity Quarles.] (Paper 11, at 1). Plaintiff asserts, [it is] unconstitutional to deny his parent [sic] rights solely on diagnosed by the Court. the basis (Id. of at 4). 5 his mental issues as In support of that assertion, Plaintiff cites a New York case, In the matter of Natasha RR, 2007 NY Slip Op. 6137 (3d Dept. 2007), and various periodical articles. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant s actions violated 42 U.S.C. § 3601 and that the court has jurisdiction as to a claim of discrimination by a government entity under Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Id.). Finally, Plaintiff contends, the conduct of the defendant is discriminatory in that plaintiff was denied based on his learning disabilities and his race (black) and gender (male). Plaintiff s complaint does (Paper 11, at 4). not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3601, the statute cited by Plaintiff in his complaint. The Fair Housing Act ( FHA ), also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits public and private parties from engaging in certain discriminatory activities as part of ensuring fair housing throughout the United States. 42 U.S.C. § regarding 3601. housing. Plaintiff does not make any allegations As such, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under § 3601. While Plaintiff has not stated a claim under § 3601, the court must consider whether the facts might support a claim under any other federal law. statutory bases for Defendant raised two possible Plaintiff s discrimination 6 claim, which Plaintiff also cited in his opposition: Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Section 12132 of the ADA states: Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. Id. distinct prohibitions. statute entity from participating entity s First, excluding in, services, or a denying programs, the This section has two qualified the or forbids a public individual from benefits of, activities. the public Second, the statute prohibits a public entity from subjecting a qualified individual to discrimination. To state a claim for discrimination under the ADA, Plaintiff must allege: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination solely on the basis of the disability. Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). Section 504 Rehabilitation Act runs parallel to the ADA and prohibits a federally funded state program from discriminating 7 against a handicapped individual solely on the basis of his disability. School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 275 (1987). 29 U.S.C. § 794 states: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. (Id.). In order for Plaintiff to establish a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, he must allege: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified; (3) he was excluded from participation in, was denied the benefits of, or was subjected to discrimination solely by reason of his disability; and (4) [Defendant] receives federal financial assistance. Proctor v. Prince George s Hospital Center, 32 F.Supp.2d 820, 826 (D.Md. 1998)(citing Doe v. University of Maryland, 50 F.3d 1261, 1265 (4th Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff has not alleged what, if any, service, or program, activity Defendants denied him. Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged, if there was a benefit that Defendants denied him, how he was qualified to receive that 8 benefit, with or without accommodation. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged how Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. identified can Only any once a purported benefit disability or activity be is assessed. Plaintiff s mere assertion that a court has found that he has mental issues is insufficient definition of disability. to show that he meets the His mere mention of race and gender in an opposition to the motion to dismiss does not suffice to allege any other cause of action. Because Plaintiff has not stated a claim, his complaint will be dismissed. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s motion to dismiss will be granted. A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 9
]]>
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.
