United States District Court, D. Nevada
ALVIN E. ADAMSON II, Plaintiffs,
REPUBLIC SERVICES OF SILVER STATE, Defendants.
before the court is defendant Republic Silver State Disposal
Service, Inc.'s ("RSSD") motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 6). Plaintiff Alvin E. Adamson II filed a response
(ECF No. 10), and defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 12).
E. Adamson II alleged in his January 27, 2017, complaint that
his employer, RSSD had repeatedly denied Adamson his
ten-minute break, subjected him to cruel and unusual
punishment, harassed him, retaliated against him, and
humiliated him in violation of "[s]tate and [f]ederal
employment laws along with [c]ivil [r]ights laws."
(ECF No. 1 at 0035). The action was filed in state court, and
the defendant timely removed it to the United States District
Court, District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1441 and 1446.
filed its motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on February 28,
2017. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff alleges he filed a complaint
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") and the Nevada Equal Rights Commission
("NERC"). (ECF No. 1). The complaint, spanning only
two substantive pages and constituting only one paragraph,
failed to address the result of the EEOC filing.
(Id.). NERC attempted to seek mediation on or about
October 20, 2015; "the defendants did not respond."
(Id. at 6).
court may dismiss a plaintiffs 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). Although rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it does require more than labels and
conclusions. Bell Ail. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). Furthermore, a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (citation omitted).
Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff
armed with nothing more than conclusions. Id. at
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Id. A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Id. When a complaint pleads facts that are merely
consistent with a defendant's liability, and shows only a
mere possibility of entitlement, the complaint does not meet
the requirements to show plausibility of entitlement to
Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step
approach district courts are to apply when considering a
motion to dismiss. Id. First, the court must accept
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint.
However, this requirement is inapplicable to legal
conclusions. Id. Second, only a complaint that
states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss. 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. When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the
line from conceivable to plausible, plaintiffs claim must be
dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading
standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th
Cir. 2011). The Starr court held:
First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth,
allegations in a complaint or counterclaim may not simply
recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain
sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair
notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself
effectively. Second, the factual allegations that are taken
as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such
that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be
subjected to the expense of discovery and continued
fails to include sufficient details to sustain a claim upon
which relief can be granted. See (ECF No. 1).
Indeed, plaintiff admits he intended to amend this filing to
include relevant details. (Id.). There may be a
conceivable violation alleged in the complaint, but the
harassment, humiliation, retaliation, and cruel and unusual
punishment allegations are predicated on conclusory
statements of law. (Id.). Without additional
information the pleading itself does not present a plausible
claim. The court cannot draw a reasonable inference that RSSD
is liable. Without "enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face" the complaint is
insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
example, there is no mention of the specific basis for
plaintiffs cause of action. (ECF No. 1). Instead, plaintiff
merely refers to unidentified state and federal laws.
(Id.). Furthermore, there is no allegation of the
defendant's specific violations under "[s]tate and