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.

Wilson v. Huckabee

March 30, 2007

JIMMIE WILSON PLAINTIFF
v.
MIKE HUCKABEE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wm. R.Wilson, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

This case was dismissed on Defendant's Motion because Plaintiff did not file a response.*fn1 Afterwards, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration*fn2 and Motion to Set Aside the Order.*fn3 Two Orders*fn4 were entered setting a new date for Plaintiff to file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.*fn5 Plaintiff complied with the Order and filed a timely response.*fn6 For reasons stated below, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted, in part, and denied, in part.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas Supreme Court, the State Board of Apportionment, the Governor of the State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and all sitting Arkansas Supreme Court Justices, in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff alleges that Arkansas's statewide election of Supreme Court Justices violates the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") as well as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.*fn7 Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief together with damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the lawsuit for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff's claim for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by sovereign immunity, (2) Defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity, (3) Supreme Court Justices are entitled to absolute immunity, (4) Plaintiff fails to state claims for relief under §§ 1981 and 1982 because there are no allegations of interference with contract or property rights; (5) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under § 1983 because there are no allegations that the named officials violated a constitutional or federal right, (6) Plaintiff failed to sue the proper parties in his VRA claim, and there are insufficient allegations to support this claim; (7) Plaintiff fails to state a Thirteenth Amendment claim for relief because there are no allegations of involuntary servitude; (8) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support his claim that Defendants violated his rights under the Fourteen and Fifteenth Amendments by intentionally maintaining a discriminatory election process.

II. Motion to Dismiss Standard

In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court must take Plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations as true.*fn8

A motion to dismiss should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.*fn9 But, the complaint must contain facts, not mere conclusions, and a court is not "required to read in missing facts necessary to perfect the claim."*fn10

III. Authority

A. Claims under § 1983

Section 1983 permits a civil action against persons who, under color of law, deprive a citizen of his rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.*fn11

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

In a § 1983 suit, Plaintiff must prove that an individual, acting under color of law, violated his Constitutional rights. An allegation of negligent conduct is not enough to state a claim.*fn12

Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.*fn13 Official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. Although discriminatory impact is ...


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.