Troy K. Scheffler, Plaintiff - Appellant
Ramona Dohman, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Public Safety, State of Minnesota; State of Minnesota, Defendants - Appellees
Submitted October 9, 2014.
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.
For Troy K. Scheffler, Plaintiff - Appellant: Peter James Nickitas, Peter J. Nickitas Law Office, LLC, Minneapolis, MN.
For Ramona Dohman, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Public Safety, State of Minnesota, State of Minnesota, Defendants - Appellees: Angela Behrens, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Saint Paul, MN.
Before COLLOTON, BRIGHT, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.
Troy K. Scheffler brought suit alleging the Minnesota statutes and rules under which he has repeatedly lost his driving privileges due to his several driving while impaired (DWI) offenses violate the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The district court dismissed Scheffler's complaint for failing to allege that he is a
qualified individual under the ADA. We affirm the dismissal.
Since 1994, Scheffler has been repeatedly arrested for DWI. In 1997, after his third arrest, Scheffler's driving privileges were cancelled subject to completion of a one-year abstinence-only alcohol rehabilitation program. Scheffler successfully completed the program, and in 1998, Scheffler was issued a driver's license with the restriction that he abstain from the use of alcohol. After a 1999 cancellation of his driver's license, Scheffler was required to complete a three-year alcohol rehabilitation program. He again successfully completed the program and received a restricted license in 2002. In 2010, Scheffler was yet again arrested for DWI. At the time he filed his complaint, Scheffler had to either complete the six-year rehabilitation program or submit to an Ignition Interlock Program in order to be issued a new restricted driver's licence.
Scheffler brought this suit, claiming ADA violations based on perceived alcoholism and seeking an injunction against the State requiring that his driving privileges be restored without restrictions. The State moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Scheffler had failed to allege a disability under the ADA.
We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Retro Television Network, Inc. v. Luken Commc'ns, LLC,696 F.3d 766, 768 (8th Cir. 2012). In so doing, we construe the allegations in the ...