Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Millsaps v. McKee

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

December 9, 2019

WILLIAM M. MILLSAPS, Plaintiff,
v.
VICTORIA MULLEN MCKEE, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JEAN C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendant McKee and Defendant State of Missouri to Dismiss Parties (ECF No. 5); the Motion of Defendant The Right Solution, Inc., to Dismiss Party (ECF No. 8); and the Motion of Defendant Millsaps to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter and for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 11). Defendants McKee and the State filed their motion on September 26, 2019. Defendant The Right Solution, Inc. (“Right Solution”), and Defendant Millsaps filed their motions on September 27, 2019. On October 30, 2019 the Court sent a letter to Plaintiff Millsaps ordering him to respond to the Motions no later than November 20, 2019. Plaintiff has not responded. The Court will take up the motions.

         BACKGROUND

         Pro Se Plaintiff's complaint arises predominately out of events associated with divorce proceedings in the St. Louis County No. 16SL-DR06772 between Plaintiff and Defendant Millsaps; specifically, the division of the property and child support award in that case. Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendant Right Solution for negligence due to counseling services Defendant Right Solutions provided during the divorce case; declaratory relief that under MRS §451.010 Plaintiff should be entitled to a new proceeding for an annulment if evidence of fraud is discovered following the original proceeding; declaratory judgement against the State of Missouri that Plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated by the application of Missouri State Statutes and that the Statutes are facially unconstitutional; and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff brings the following Counts:

Count I: Negligence against Defendant Right Solutions
Count II: Malpractice against Defendant Right Solutions
Count III: Declaratory judgement for a new trial
Count IV: Declaratory relief regarding the taking of Plaintiff's personal property
Count V: Declaratory relief regarding domestic support orders

         Defendants challenge the Complaint on multiple grounds including subject matter jurisdiction, res judicata, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

         LEGAL STANDARD

         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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The pleading standard of rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than unadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         Further, in regard to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, the Supreme Court holds:

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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.