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.

Madrid v. Davis

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

May 9, 2018

ANDREW PAUL MADRID
v.
JOEL G. DAVIS Individually and in his official capacity

          PEREZ-MONTES, MAG. JUDGE

          MEMORANDUM RULING

          JAMES T. TRIMBLE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the court is a "Motion to Dismiss by Judge Joel G. Davis" (R. #14) wherein the Defendant moves to dismiss the instant lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because this court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims, and Rule 12(b)(6) because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         ALLEGATIONS

         In his complaint, pro se plaintiff, Andrew Madrid, complains that his constitutional rights were violated when Judge Davis issued a temporary restraining order, granted a divorce judgment, and issued an order restricting Plaintiff's visitation with his children to three (3) hours per week under supervision at the Whistle Stop. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Davis is biased because he applied the "best interest" of the child standard in granting the mother of Plaintiff's minor children custody, care and control. Mr. Madrid further complains that his constitutional rights were violated when Judge Davis limited his visitation and ordered Plaintiff to undergo and complete a psychological evaluation; Plaintiff also complains that he was subjected to malicious prosecution. Mr. Madrid seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.[1]

         RULE 12(b)(1) STANDARD

         Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction...

         A court may base its disposition of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) on: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.[2]Courts may consider affidavits and exhibits submitted in connection with a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.[3] Once challenged with competent proof, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.[4]

         RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that pleadings which state one or more claims for relief must contain "...a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief..." This "notice pleading" requirement is balanced against Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), which provides that a court may dismiss one or more claims when the pleader fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         For the purpose of considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must take all well-pled factual allegations as true and must view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.[5] The pleading must allege facts which, when taken as true, raise the pleader's claim to a plausible claim for relief. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be denied unless "it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts" alleged in the petition.[6]

         Only those facts which are well-pleaded and state a "plausible claim for relief" must be accepted.[7] A claim is plausible when the court can reasonably infer from the facts that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff; a claim is not plausible when it only states conclusions of a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action."[8] However, even those facts which are extremely doubtful are to be assumed correct.[9]

         Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts performed within their jurisdictions.[10] This immunity extends to all actions for damages under § 1983 regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks damages or injunctive relief.[11] "[A] federal court has no power to direct a state court or its judicial officers ...


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.