The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ADRIENNE ELEANOR BROWN CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO: 19-10674
JESSE GEORGE, ET AL SECTION: T (5)
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a
Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted1 filed by defendant Jo-Muriel Ojo (incorrectly named
as Omirial Ojo) (“Ojo”), an employee for the Louisiana Department of Children and Family
Services (“DCFS”) and a Rule(b)(5) Motion, Rule 12(b)(6) and In the Alternative, Rule 12(e)
Motion for a More Definite Statement2 filed by Jesse George (“George”). Adrienne Eleanor Brown
(“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to Ojo’s motion to dismiss.3 For the following reasons, the motions
to dismiss4 are GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ojo, George,
Emily Gibson, Roger Brown Sr., and Taylor Allen.5 In Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, Plaintiff
complains of an arrest that allegedly occurred on or about August 28, 2018, which resulted in the
State of Louisiana taking custody of her children.6 In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Plaintiff
1 R. Doc. 15.
2 R. Doc. 27.
3 R. Doc. 18.
4 R. Docs. 15 and 27.
5 R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 25.
6 R. Doc. 6, p.6.
makes allegations of slander and adds Donald Duncan Jr., Officer William Boersma, Officer
Bordelon, and Kenneth Vernell Mackie as defendants.7
On September 6, 2019, Ojo filed a motion to dismiss contending the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and the Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.8 On November 27, 2019, George filed a motion to dismiss also contending Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.9
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed “for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.”10 Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are viewed with
disfavor and are rarely granted.11 To survive a motion to dismiss, a “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”12
In evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court should confine itself to the pleadings,13
and the documents attached to the complaint.14
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against Ojo and George. The complaint asserts a §1983 claim against defendants for:
denying of enforcement of rights, intention to confer individual rights (implied),
unauthorized release of educational records, unmistakable focus of state in
question, failed to set fourth to judge the reasonableness of states compliance to the
law, private right of action, any binding obligations, intentional coheres the law to
benefit plaintiffs, no reasonable efforts to avoid removal of children [sic].15
7 R. Doc. 25.
8 R. Doc. 15.
9 R. Doc. 27.
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
11 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982).
12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
13 Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839 (5th Cir. 2004).
14 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
15 R. Doc. 1, p.4.
Plaintiff's only factual allegation related to Ojo is that “Ojo case worker continues to make
accusations of me being non compliant when she in fact refuses to give me my case plan, or let the
kid return home safely [sic].”'° Plaintiff makes no factual allegation against George other than
naming George in the caption of the amended complaint.!’ On the complaint as written, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted against either Ojo or George.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted!® filed by
defendant Jo-Muriel Ojo (incorrectly named as Omirial Ojo) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the Rule(b)(5) Motion, Rule 12(b)(6) and In the Alternative, Rule 12(e) Motion
for a More Definite Statement” filed by Jesse George is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against
Jo-Muriel Ojo and Jesse George are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, on this 4th day of February, 2020.
C a4 Goud
REG GERARD GUIDRY “|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG
16R. Doe. 1, p.5.
Doe. 25.
Doe. 15.
OR. Doe. 27.