Pierce v. Bethany College(WV)
5:18-cv-00157
| N.D.W. Va. | Dec 28, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Khallid Pierce, a pro se former Bethany College student, sued Bethany College in state court alleging various federal, international, and church-law violations and sought $44,400 plus an apology for alleged discrimination, trauma, and related harms arising in 2017.
- Defendant removed the action to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on assertions including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Pierce filed motions for default judgment, immediate trial, alternative dispute resolution, and later sought leave to amend to add claims of reckless endangerment and systemic racial discrimination.
- Bethany argued the § 1983 claim fails for lack of state action and that Pierce’s complaint (and proposed amendments) lack factual allegations to state plausible claims or put the college on notice.
- The court issued a Roseboro-style notice to the pro se plaintiff, considered the briefing, and treated the sufficiency of pleadings under Twombly/Iqbal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Pierce contends his complaint alleges federal and other violations and seeks to proceed on those claims | Bethany argues the complaint is conclusory, fails to plead facts showing entitlement to relief, and does not place the college on notice | Court granted motion to dismiss: complaint fails to plead plausible claims under Twombly/Iqbal |
| Whether § 1983 claim properly pleaded (state action) | Pierce asserted civil-rights violations including § 1983 | Bethany argued no allegations show it acted under color of state law | Court found § 1983 claim deficient and dismissed it (plaintiff effectively conceded dismissal of such claims) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted (futility) | Pierce sought leave to amend to clarify relief and add claims of reckless endangerment and systemic racial discrimination | Bethany argued amendment was untimely and futile because proposed pleadings suffer same defects and would not survive 12(b)(6) | Court denied motion to amend as futile under Rule 15(a) because proposed complaints would not survive dismissal |
| Whether default judgment, immediate trial, or ADR should be granted | Pierce asked for default judgment and immediate trial and offered ADR/mediation | Bethany showed it timely removed and moved to dismiss, so it had not defaulted; immediate trial was impractical | Court denied default judgment, denied immediate trial and ADR motions; case dismissed and stricken from docket |
Key Cases Cited
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (pleading standard and treatment of factual allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to factual assumption; plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim, more than speculative)
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
- Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2009) (limits on inferences and conclusions at motion to dismiss stage)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards governing leave to amend pleadings)
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (denial of leave to amend appropriate for futility, prejudice, or bad faith)
- Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910 (4th Cir. 1995) (amendment is futile if amended complaint would not survive motion to dismiss)