United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia
KENNETH M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
KANAWHA VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. Tinsley United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is assigned to the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge for final disposition pursuant to the
consent of the parties (ECF No. 8). Pending before the court
is the defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (ECF No.
August 23, 2016, the defendant removed this civil action to
this court from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County based on
federal question jurisdiction. The plaintiff's one-page
Complaint alleges as follows:
This lawsuit is being filed against Kanawha Valley Regional
Transportation Authority because certain drivers employed by
KVRTA have continuously vi[o]lated my rights. Ten months ago
a driver made an attempt to murder me with the bus he was
driving! Simply stated, I charge KVRTA's drivers with
overt racial discrimination, in violation of my rights under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Code. Suit amount $150, 000.
No. 1-1 at 2).
August 29, 2016, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 3) and a Memorandum of Law in support thereof (ECF No.
4). The defendant's motion documents assert that the
plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
September 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed a one-page
Letter-Form Response to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6), in
which he requests that the court deny the motion and
summarily asserts that he “will swear under oath in
court that the facts alledged [sic; alleged] in the Complaint
ware completely true an[d] valid.” (Id.) The
defendant did not file a reply brief. This matter is ripe for
complaints are held to less stringent standards than those
drafted by attorneys, and the court is obliged to construe
liberally such complaints. However, in Bell Atlantic Corp
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), the Supreme Court
observed that a case should be dismissed for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if, viewing the
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint
does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” While the
complaint need not assert “detailed factual
allegations, ” it must contain “more than labels
and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action.” Id. at
Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Twombly
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a civil
rights case. The Court wrote:
Two working principles underlie our decision in
Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice. [Twombly, 550 U.S.] at
555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (Although for the purposes of a motion to
dismiss we must take all of the factual allegations in the
complaint as true, we “are not bound to accept as true
a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”
(internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 8 . . . does not
unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with
nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that
states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss. Id., at 556.
In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion
to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that,
because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled
to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported
by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume ...