United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
WILLIAM M. MILLSAPS, Plaintiff,
VICTORIA MULLEN MCKEE, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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
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
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).
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).
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
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
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 ...