United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
EULA BLACKLEDGE, on behalf of J.B. PLAINTIFF
VICKSBURG-WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS
CARLTON W. REEVES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Vicksburg-Warren School District's
Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Docket No. 17.
Plaintiff filed a response, Docket No. 21, to which Defendant
filed a rebuttal, Docket No. 23. After considering the
allegations, arguments, and applicable law, the Court grants
Factual and Procedural History
August 2015, J.B. started school at Vicksburg Junior High
School. Docket No. 16 at 3. Within the first month of the
school year, J.B. was allegedly “harassed, teased,
bullied, and assaulted as a direct response to his learning
disability [Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder].”
Id. at 5.
later, Eula Blackledge filed this suit on behalf of her son,
alleging that the District “targeted and subjected J.B.
to severe pervasive bullying and harassment on account of his
learning disability” in violation of his equal
protection and due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Docket No. 1 at 1. He also asserted a state law
claim of negligence. Id.
District moved to dismiss all claims. Docket No. 6. This
Court denied the Motion and granted Plaintiff leave to
address several deficiencies in his Complaint: “whether
(1) the child in question is alive; (2) what elements
plaintiff would have to show to support a claimed violation
of equal protection in the context of student-to-student
harassment; (3) whether a claim has been brought pursuant to
the ADA; and (4) whether plaintiff's claim of negligence
is brought pursuant to the [Mississippi Tort Claims
Act].” Docket No. 14 at 1.
2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, clarifying that
(1) the child is still alive; (3) claims have been brought
pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA; and (4) the
negligence claim is brought pursuant to the MTCA. Docket No.
16. But as discussed below, Plaintiff failed to follow this
Court's second directive to provide an applicable equal
District now requests that the Court dismiss all federal
claims with prejudice and dismiss all state claims without
prejudice for their refiling in state court. Docket No. 16 at
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of an
action that fails “to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts all
factual allegations as true and makes all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff's
complaint “must contain a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Id. at 677-78 (quotation marks and
citation omitted). The plaintiff's claims need not
include “detailed factual allegations, ” but the
complaint must contain “more than an unadorned, the
Id. at 678 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The plaintiff must also plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “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.” Hale v. King, 642
F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678).
Iqbal, the Fifth Circuit has clarified that the
Supreme Court's “emphasis on the plausibility of a
complaint's allegations does not give district courts
license to look behind those allegations and independently
assess the likelihood that the plaintiff will be able to
prove them at trial.” Harold H. Huggins Realty,
Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787, 803 n.4 (5th Cir.
2011). The plausibility standard calls only “for enough
fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will
reveal evidence of the necessary claims or elements.”
Flagg v. Stryker Corp. 647 Fed.Appx. 314, 316 (5th
Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).