In the United States District Court for
The Middle District of Alabama
Northern Division
Case # 99-A-295-N
James R. Blackston,
Bradley W. Barber,
Plaintiffs,
v.
State of Alabama,
Circuit Judge Richard Dorrough,
Frank Gregory,
Bob Maddox.
Defendants
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Comes now the Defendants State of Alabama, Circuit Judge Richard Dorrough, Frank Gregory, and Bob Maddox and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule12 (b)(6) submit a motion to dismiss. As grounds in support of this motion, the Defendants submit the following:
1. The Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted because it is unripe and speculative based on the Plaintiffs' claim for future injury.
2. The facts alleged in the complaint fail to show a deprivation of any right or privilege of the First Amendment or any other constitutional rights.
3. The Plaintiffs' have failed to state a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim upon which relief can be granted against the Defendants in their individual capacities.
4. All claims for damages, under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendants, State of Alabama, Circuit Judge Richard Dorrough, Frank Gregory, and Bob Maddox in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Kentucky V. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1 985); Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).
5. The complaint is due to be dismissed because the Defendants are entitled to absolute legislative immunity in regards to the Plaintiffs' claims.
6. The complaint against the Defendants in their individual capacities is due to be dismissed, as the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Lassiter v. Alabama A&M Univ, 28 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 1994).
7. The Defendants, State of Alabama, Circuit Judge Richard Dorrough, Frank Gregory, and Bob Maddox named in their official capacities are not persons who can be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Therefore all civil rights claims and 42U.S.C.§ 1983 claims against the Defendants are due to be dismissed. Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58(1989).
8. Plaintiffs' fail to state a claim for relief against the Defendants for alleged misappropriations of federal funds. Thus, all these claims are due to be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.,Rule12 (b)(6).
9. All claims against the State of Alabama are due to be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity under Article 1, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
10. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages and such claims are due to be dismissed.
11. The complaint fails to aver sufficient facts to establish that the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief.
12. To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy claim against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1985, the claim is due to be dismissed as it fails to state a claim.
13. To the extent that the Plaintiffs allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1986, the claim is due to be dismissed as it fails to state a claim.
14. The complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the Defendants for attorney's fees under 18 U.S.C. §1988 and is due to be dismissed.
15. The complaint is insufficient to state a cause of action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1961.
16. The complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Defendants under the Alabama Constitution, Article I, §§ 4, 6, 13, 22, 25, 35, (Declaration of Rights) and Article IV § 95 (Obligation of Contracts) (1901). Therefore, this Court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims based on the Plaintiffs failure to establish any legitimate federal claims.
17. The complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the Defendants under the US Constitution Article I, § 10 (Obligation of Contracts) and is due to be dismissed.
18. The complaint is due to be dismissed because no employment matter is alleged by Plaintiffs that invokes Title VII. Moreover, there is no cognizable assertion of discrimination that the Plaintiffs' allege in their complaint.
19. The complaint is due to be dismissed because Defendant, State of Alabama is entitled to absolute sovereign immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment.
20. The complaint is due to be dismissed because it fails to comport with the requirements of Article III. Therefore, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs' claims.
In support of this motion, the Defendants submit a memorandum brief attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
BILL PRYOR
Attorney General
Lavette Lyas-Brown (LYA001)
Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for the Defendant
National Congress for Fathers and Children
Birmingham Alabama Branch
[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]