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.

Greene v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 21, 2017

CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff,
v.
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS LLC., Defendant.

          ORDER DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 20)

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant Logisticare Solutions LLC (“Defendant”). ECF No. 20. The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and for the reasons discussed below, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Cedric Greene filed this Amended Complaint pro se on July 24, 2015, after this Court granted him 30 days leave to amend his Complaint to establish this Court as proper venue. ECF No. 18. In his Amended Complaint, Greene addressed venue but did not include any cause of action or facts interpreted liberally that could be inferred to constitute a cause of action. Id. The Court will briefly summarize Greene's allegations in chronological order.

         Greene alleges in his Complaint that sometime before March 2015, the Defendant was responsible for transporting Greene to and from his home to his doctor's office. ECF No. 5 at 1-2. Greene alleges that on at least one occasion the Defendant sent a taxi service instead of a shuttle-van to transport Greene from his home to his doctor's office and failed to notify Greene that his pickup time had been changed. ECF No. 5 at 1-2. Greene alleges that as a result of the Defendant's utilization of a taxi service and poor communication Greene suffered deprivation or delay of his medical care in violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ECF No 5 at 1-2.

         Greene filed a Complaint and Motion for Leave to file in forma pauperis on March 23, 2015 in the United States District Court, which was denied without prejudice. ECF No. 1. Greene re-applied for leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis on April 8, 2015. ECF No. 2. Magistrate Judge Koppe approved Greene's second application to proceed in forma pauperis, at which time Judge Koppe reviewed Greene's Complaint and recommended that it be dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 4 at 4. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in response to Greene's complaint on April 14, 2015. ECF No. 6. On July 8, 2015, the Court adopted Judge Koppe's recommendation to dismiss Greene's Complaint and granted Greene 30 days to amend his Complaint to establish that venue is proper in this Court. ECF No. 17 at 4. On July 24, 2015 Greene filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) and the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 13, 2015. ECF No. 20.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

         An initial pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The court may dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, “[a]ll well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint are accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). In addition, documents filed by a plaintiff who is proceeding without counsel (as is the case here) must be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint must be “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Butler v. Long, 752 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2014).

         To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ” but merely asserting “‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'” is not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In other words, a claim will not be dismissed if it contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” meaning that the court can reasonably infer “that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In elaborating on the pleading standard described in Twombly and Iqbal, the Ninth Circuit has held that for a complaint to survive dismissal, the plaintiff must allege non-conclusory facts that, together with reasonable inferences from those facts, are “plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

         “As a general rule, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court's review is limited to the complaint itself; the court does not decide at this stage whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on her claims, but rather whether he or she may offer evidence to support those claims. Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

         B. Dismissal With Prejudice

         The district court has the power to dismiss a claim with prejudice if the Plaintiff fails to comply with the rules of pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); accord Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a plaintiff “fail[s] to obey a court order to file a short and plain statement of the claim as required by Rule 8[, ]” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996), or when a plaintiff's complaints are so incoherent or unintelligible as to make it “impossible ...


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.