United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
GLICENIA C. LOGAN PLAINTIFF
v.
SGT. CHRIS WATERS Arkansas State Police; SHELLPOINT/CONTRYWIDE/BANK OF AMERICA Trustee/Home Loan Serv/Banking and Loans; SENIOR CORPORAL MICHAEL SPRINGER Supervisor/Investigating Officer; JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN/NATASHA GRAF Standing/ Worker Trustee; CHIEF JUDGE BEN T. BARRY United States Bankruptcy Court; JOHN MICHAEL RAINWATER/BRIAN LIGHT Lawyers/Attorney; ALLISON HOUSTON State Prosecutor's Office/Fort Smith Prosecutor's Office; JUDGE FITZHUGH Judge District Court of Greenwood; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE; MR. COOPER MORTHAGE Mr. Cooper Mortgage Company; DANA BYRUM District IV manager for Stat[e of Arkansas; and NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP. DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
P. K.
HOLMES, III, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
proceeds in this matter pro se. Currently before the
Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by
Defendant Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation
(“Nissan”). (ECF No's 5, 6).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed her Complaint on September 1, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Her
allegations appear to reference the condemnation of an
unidentified parcel of real property. (Id. at 5-6).
The entirety of her claim is as follows:
“I Purchase the property in 2003 with my spouse, in
2004 I Started a Daycare to able to profit and make a
Different, 2005-2006 Started Working on the building on the
road to the daycare, got my daycare Address Register at 4513
Park Road next to my house, I send $500 to Bank of America in
2008 also I Survey the one Acre for the daycare Started my
Garden and Rabbits farm to allowed the kids to eat healthy
and allowed to to learn about the animal, they health, etc I
pay about $75, 000 within 10 years with all my work and
Investment I have spend roughtlyabout $98, 000
Due to lack of accountability of Shellpoint, attorney
Countrywide, Bank of America, Brian Light, the judge and
Court not listening to me know Fema Condemn the house till I
fix it up know I have more than a sick spouse to think about
his health but to put a roof over his head[.]”
(Id. at 5) (errors in original). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages in the amount of $250, 000. (Id. at
6).
Nissan
filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on October 9, 2019. (ECF No's 5, 6).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only that a complaint
present “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “In order to meet this standard,
and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
omitted)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556
U.S. at 678. A pro se plaintiff's complaint is liberally
construed, but still must allege sufficient facts to support
the plaintiff's claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364
F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). Merely listing a defendant in
a case caption is insufficient to support a claim against the
defendant. Krych v. Hass, 83 Fed.Appx. 854, 855 (8th
Cir. 2003) (citing Potter v. Clark, 497 F.2d 1206,
1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (noting that court
properly dismissed pro se complaint that was silent as to
defendant except for his name appearing in caption)).
III.
ANALYSIS
Nissan
argues Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because Plaintiff fails to
mention Nissan or any alleged wrongdoing by Nissan in her
allegations. (ECF No. 6 at 3). Nissan is correct. Plaintiff
has not alleged any facts concerning Nissan in the body of
her Complaint. Instead, she merely listed Nissan as a
Defendant in the caption of the case. Because Plaintiff's
complaint does not allege specific facts showing anything
Nissan did, or failed to do, that would give Plaintiff some
right to relief against Nissan, her claims against Nissan
must be dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For
these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Nissan's
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 5) is
GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims ...