United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
GARLAND E. WILLIAMS
KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
HELEN G. BERRIGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by defendants State of Kansas, 3rd Judicial Shawnee County District Court (“Shawnee County District Court”), and Kansas Department for Children and Families (f/k/a Kansas Department for Social and Rehabilitation Services). Rec. Doc. 37-1; Rec. Doc. 40-1. The motions are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Having considered the record, the memoranda of counsel, and the law, the Court has determined that it will grant defendants State of Kansas, Shawnee County District Court, and Kansas Department for Children and Families’ Motions to Dismiss for the following reasons.
On July 18, 2014, Garland E. Williams, a resident of Louisiana, filed suit against the State of Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Service, the State of Kansas, the Shawnee County 3rd District Court, the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the State of Louisiana and the 22nd Judicial District Court. Rec. Doc. 1. Mr. Garland filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2014. Rec. Doc. 7.
The Court understands from his complaint that claims Mr. Garland is seeking relief from the enforcement of child support orders entered by state courts in Kansas and Louisiana. He asserts such orders are fraudulent and violate his constitutional rights. Mr. Garland cites to Article III, Sections 1 and 2, Amendment VII, and Amendment XIV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, as well as various Kansas and Louisiana family law statutes. See Rec. Doc. 7. Mr. Garland seeks compensatory and punitive monetary damages in the amount of $1, 000, 000, 000, 000. Id. at 7.
The Court previously dismissed Mr. Garland’s claims against the State of Louisiana and the 22nd Judicial District Court. Rec. Doc. 26.
On December 31, 2014, defendants State of Kansas and Shawnee County District Court filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Garland’s claims against them for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rec. Doc. 37-1. Likewise, on January, 8 2015, defendant Kansas Department for Children and Families filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Garland’s claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rec. Doc. 40-1.
Mr. Garland filed an opposition to the State of Kansas and the Shawnee County District Court’s motion to dismiss. Rec. Doc. 49. Mr. Garland filed an opposition to the Kansas Department for Children and Families’ motion, but it was stricken from the record for failure to remedy deficiency. Rec. Doc.43.
A motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) may be granted “only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). Where the moving party attacks the factual basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the district court may go beyond the allegations of the complaint to consider undisputed facts in the record and resolve disputes of fact created by the record. Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 1981). The burden lies with the party invoking jurisdiction of the court. Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) may be granted when a complaint fails to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)." A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable interference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, taken as true, must raise the plaintiff's right to recover above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56. Facts from which the court could infer the mere possibility of liability will not suffice. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). A fortieri, a complaint may be dismissed when it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to prevail. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 560-61.
On a motion to dismiss, the court must take all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, "conclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted as true, especially when such conclusions are contradicted by facts disclosed by ...