The opinion of the court was delivered by: Miranda M. DU United States District Judge
(Defendants' Motion to Dismiss -- dkt. no. 16; Plaintiff's Motion to Amend -- dkt. no. 21; Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time -- dkt. no. 22; Plaintiff's Objection to Reassignment -- dkt. no. 31)
Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motions to Amend, Extend Time, and Objection to Reassignment. (See dkt. nos. 16, 21, 22, and 31.)
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is granted, and Plaintiff's Motions are denied.
On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff Douglas A. Wallace brought this action pro se against Defendants Willard Mitt Romney, Eric Holder, and Lynn M. Halbrooks based on a series of allegations concerning government takeovers, purported establishment of religious rule in the United States, and the use of data centers by theocratic dictatorships in Utah.*fn1 The allegations are difficult to comprehend, and it is unclear upon what causes of action Plaintiff seeks to sue Defendants.
Shortly after being served, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing that the Complaint is fanciful, bizarre, and contains frivolous allegations. Thereafter, Wallace filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and for Enlargement of Time to Amend Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (See dkt. nos. 21 and 22.) Wallace seeks to amend his Complaint after the dismissal of Romney from the suit, and seeks to amend his Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
On April 16, 2013, this case was reassigned to the undersigned. Five days later, Wallace filed an Objection to the reassignment seeking reconsideration of the reassignment on account of alleged conflicts of interest.
A court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). "Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citation omitted).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, a district court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Second, a district court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678. Where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has "alleged -- but not shown -- that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 679 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the claims in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
A complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations concerning "all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562 (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., ...