United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant U.S. Banks Motion to
Strike and to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 35]. Plaintiff has failed to
respond to the Motion. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant's Motion will be granted.
November 22, 2016, the Court dismissed the individual
defendants originally named in Plaintiff's Complaint and
ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 14 days
of November 22, 2016. On December 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
“Memorandum for Clerk” which stated:
of 42 U.S.C. 1981 to include docket 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16 input cases on docket 19, re 19, 29 and apply to cases
to my case
P. 15(a)(2) 1981 to include U.S. Bank, Andre Walton, LaVeshia
Butler, Robbie Hawkins, CEO, CFO, Cynthia Johnson, Ricky
Suarez, Martell Whitehorn, Ashlee Wright, Tames Flack, and
input U.S. Bank address 4000 W. Broadway, Robbinsdale, MN,
55422 in suit.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) provides for
a motion to dismiss based on the “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” To survive a
motion to dismiss a complaint must show “‘that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
See also Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200
(2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice” to defeat a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[O]nly a complaint
that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss.” Id. at 1950 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The pleading standard of
Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual
allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned,
Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555). See also Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 818
(8th Cir.2010) (“[A]n allegation in any negligence
claim that the defendant acted as plaintiff's
‘employer' satisfies Rule 8(a)(2)'s notice
pleading requirement for this element.”).
with regard to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Supreme Court
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations,
[citations omitted] a plaintiff's obligation to provide
the “grounds” of his “entitle[ment] to
relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to
dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp.
235-236 (3d ed.2004) ... see, e.g., ... Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104
L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance
... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a
complaint's factual allegations”); Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90
(1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it
appears “that a recovery is very remote and
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56. See also Gregory v.
Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir.2009)
(en banc) (“[A] plaintiff ‘must assert facts that
affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has the
right he claims ..., rather than facts that are merely
consistent with such a right.' ”) (quoting
Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiative, 509
F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir.2007)).
“Memorandum for Clerk” contains none of the
necessary elements of an Amended Complaint. It clearly fails
to notify Defendant U.S. Bank what the allegations against it
are. Defendant cannot begin to address Plaintiff's claims
through this “Memorandum”
the Court has dismissed the individual defendants, and it
appears Plaintiff is attempting to bring these ...