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.

Breck v. Doyle

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 25, 2018

WILLIAM BRECK, an Individual, pro se, Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER DOYLE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 130, 134.) The first was filed on behalf of David Clark, Kimberly Farmer, Laura Peters, Patrick King, J. Thomas Susich, Caren Cafferata-Jenkins, Kathleen Breckenridge (collectively, “Individual Defendants”), and the State Bar of Nevada (“SBN”). (ECF No. 130.) Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 141), and Individual Defendants and SBN replied (ECF No. 148).

         The second motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Defendants State of Nevada and the Nevada Supreme Court (“NSC”). (ECF No. 134.) Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 141), and Defendants State of Nevada and NSC replied (ECF No. 153).

         For the following reasons, the Court grants both motions to dismiss.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel (“Panel”) found that Plaintiff violated Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that he be barred from the practice of law in Nevada. (See ECF No. 124-3 at 1.) Plaintiff appealed the decision to the NSC and asserted a number of constitutional due process and equal protection violations. (See ECF No. 130-3 at 41-75.) Meanwhile, Plaintiff initiated this action, and the Court abstained under Younger, staying the case. (See ECF No. 111 at 11.) The Court also dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Id.) Before Plaintiff filed his SAC, the NSC affirmed the Panel's sanctions, concluding that Plaintiff did not demonstrate “that his constitutional rights were violated during or by the proceedings.” (ECF No. 130-2 at 4.) Plaintiff appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but the Court denied Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari. (ECF No. 124-3 at 1.) Plaintiff then filed his SAC, which contains claims for violations of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as claims for violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Commerce Clause, and unconstitutional conditions doctrine, all stemming from his disciplinary proceeding. (ECF No. 124-1 at 6-8.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) Legal Standard

         Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows defendants to seek dismissal of a claim or action for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) “is appropriate if the complaint, considered in its entirety, on its face fails to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2008). Although the defendant is the moving party in a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff is the party invoking the court's jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court. In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D.), N.A., Cardholder Rebate Program Litig., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)).

         B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Legal Standard

         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 pleaded 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 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 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.” Id. at 570.

         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-pleaded factual allegations-but not legal conclusions-in the complaint. Id. at 678. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. 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 plaintiffs 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 has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 679. 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.

         IV. ...


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.