Opinion
Civil Action 19-22241 (GC) (TJB)
02-14-2023
WALLACE C. DENNIS, Plaintiff, v. EATONTOWN BOROUGH et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Georgette Castner United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Eatontown Borough, Anthony Talerico, Jr., William P. Lucia, III, and Arthur Ehrumantraut (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Wallace C. Dennis's (“Plaintiff') Complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 23), and Defendants did not reply. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons below, the Court grants Defendants' Motion.
The Court liberally construes Plaintiffs Complaint and accepts all well-pleaded facts as true. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (explaining that at this stage, courts are required to accept all well-pleaded allegations as true (citing Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd, 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002))).
Plaintiff brings a claim based on the alleged violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on February 4, 2016, Defendants violated his rights when his “car was in a car accident where [t]he Chief of Police damaged [his] property and the accident was not handled correctly.” (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that his car was totaled and “no summons was issued for the driver . . . with no license and [t]he Chief who made an illegal turn through a stop signal.” (Id.) Plaintiff summarizes:
My car was wrecked and [t]he Borough [of Eatontown] refused to help me. The Police Chief and the Patrolman didn't handle the accident correctly. The City hasn't tried to help me. The driver of my car had no valid license. The Patrolman didn't write the report correctly. No Summons was issued to anyone.(Id.) As to his injuries, Plaintiff states that he has had congestive heart failure (“CHF”) since December 2000, and the accident has not been good for his health. (Id. ¶ 5.) These are the extent of Plaintiff's factual allegations.
Plaintiff filed this action, and Defendants responded with the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion to Dismiss. The motion is ripe for resolution.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed after the pleadings are closed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). In analyzing a Rule 12(c) motion, a court applies the same legal standards as applicable to a motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Turbe v. Gov't of V.I., 938 F.2d427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991).
Hereinafter, all references to “Rule” or “Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231 (quoting Pinker, 292 F.3d at 374 n.7). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Importantly, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been presented.” Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)).
III. DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the Court recognizes that when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, “the complaint is ‘to be liberally construed,' and, ‘however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Walsh v. Household Fin. Corp. Ill. No. 15-4112, 2016 WL 6826161, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2016) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). A pro se litigant, however, “is not absolved from complying with Twombly and the federal pleading requirements merely because s/he proceeds pro se.” Thakar v. Tan, 372 Fed.Appx. 325, 328 (3d Cir. 2010). Thus, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239,245 (3d Cir. 2013). Furthermore, although the Court holds complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs to a lesser standard, pleadings must still be “straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Walsh, 2016 WL 6826161, at *2.
Here, the Complaint is only a few sentences long and contains no factual detail as to what seems to be the crux of Plaintiffs Complaint: why Plaintiff believes his rights under the ADA were violated. Title I of the ADA relates to disability discrimination by employers. 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. There is nothing in Plaintiffs Complaint that references employment. (See generally Compl.) Title II of the ADA requires Plaintiff to show that he is: “(1) a qualified individual with a disability; (2) excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some service, program, or activity by reason of his disability; and (3) the entity which provides the service, program, or activity is a public entity.” Hibbert v. Bellmawr Park Mut. Hous. Corp., 937 F.Supp.2d 565, 572 (D.N.J. 2013). Plaintiff does not allege any facts that support these elements. (See generally Compl.) Plaintiff does not specify any “service, program, or activity” that he was denied, and he does not allege that any denial was “by reason of his disability.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege how his CHF related to any improper police report, and he does not allege that Defendants even knew of his CHF. (Id.) Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on a disability “in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place or public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Again, Plaintiff fails to show that his disability was the root or cause of any alleged discrimination. (See generally Compl.)
In sum, Plaintiff alleges nothing that would allow the Court to find a connection between his CHF and the accident at issue in this case. The Court will permit Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies identified above within thirty days.
The District Court for the District of New Jersey publishes a Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants that is available online at: http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/ProSeGuide.pdf. The form complaint contained therein may assist Plaintiff in filing an amended complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motion. The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.