Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Navarro v. Emery

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division

August 30, 2017

JIM NAVARRO, Plaintiff,
v.
MR. DAVID EMERY, MR. FRED GRANTHAM, BLACK HILLS ENERGY, Defendants.

          ORDER

          JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Jim Navarro filed a complaint against defendants alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. (Docket 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Docket 12). For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

         ANALYSIS

         Defendants assert five grounds for dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. (Docket 12). Those grounds are summarized as follows:

1. Because there is no state action alleged, there is no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;[1]
2. Because defendants are not a public entity, there is no claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
3. The complaint fails to state a claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;
4. The complaint fails to state a claim under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; and
5. There is no right of private action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341 or 1343.

(Docket 12 at p. 1). Mr. Navarro resists defendants' motion. (Dockets 20 & 22).

         Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In evaluating the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in plaintiff's complaint and grants all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff as the nonmoving party. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ”) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). See also Crooks v. Lynch, 557 F.3d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 2009) (the court must review “a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and granting all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the nonmoving party.”) (brackets omitted). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

         Because Mr. Navarro is proceeding pro se, his pleading must be liberally construed and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The factual allegations are summarized as follows:
1. Mr. Navarro, an elderly person, had the electrical services to his residence disconnected without advance notice ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.