Plouffe v. Simpson, 2018 MT 4N

Pro se plaintiff Douglas L. Plouffe sued Dennis Simpson, Arne Lefdahl, Vic Lefdahl and unnamed others over use/ownership of a water system near Saco, Montana, alleging criminal acts (theft, burglary, trespass, criminal mischief) and seeking prosecution and damages.
Defendants (also pro se) moved to dismiss and submitted affidavits and documents disputing Plouffe’s ownership of the water system.
The District Court granted dismissal under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), stating that even taking Plouffe’s complaint as true, it failed to state any claim for relief; the court did not rely on the outside materials submitted with defendants’ motions.
On appeal Plouffe argued the court should have converted the motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion (because of the outside materials) and that his complaint sufficiently pleaded wrongful acts.
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo, examined whether the District Court properly declined to consider materials outside the complaint, and whether the complaint stated a cognizable civil claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court erred by not converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a motion for summary judgment when defendants submitted outside materials	Plouffe: court likely relied on outside materials; if so, it should have converted and given him chance to respond	Defendants: court may ignore outside materials and decide on the complaint only	Court: No error — record and dismissal order show court limited review to the complaint; district court may exercise discretion to ignore outside materials and need only convert if it actually considered them
Whether Plouffe’s complaint stated a claim upon which relief can be granted	Plouffe: alleged defendants committed crimes and sought prosecution and damages	Defendants: factual allegations insufficient, and Plouffe is not owner of the water system	Court: Complaint dismissed — largely legal conclusions about criminal conduct, few well-pleaded facts, failed to plead elements of a civil claim; criminal statute violations alone do not create a civil cause of action

Plouffe v. State, 314 Mont. 413, 66 P.3d 316 (2003) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and limits when court does not convert to summary judgment)
Cowan v. Cowan, 321 Mont. 13, 89 P.3d 6 (2004) (acceptance of district court’s statement that it ruled on a motion to dismiss and relied only on the complaint)
Meagher v. Butte-Silver Bow City-County, 337 Mont. 339, 160 P.3d 552 (2007) (district court has discretion to consider or ignore materials outside the complaint; conversion required if court treats motion as one for summary judgment)
Kunst v. Pass, 288 Mont. 264, 957 P.2d 1 (1998) (pleading must put defendant on notice and allege facts disclosing elements of the claim)
McKinnon v. W. Sugar Coop. Corp., 355 Mont. 120, 225 P.3d 1221 (2010) (liberal pleading rules do not excuse omission of material facts necessary for relief)
Mysse v. Martens, 279 Mont. 253, 926 P.2d 765 (1996) (pleading must contain more than mere suspicion of a claim)