United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LYNDERIA S. MANSFIELD, Plaintiff,
NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOL, Defendant.
McNULTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the motion of the defendant,
Newark Public Schools (NPS) to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (DE 11) Also pending is
Ms. Mansfield's fifth motion for appointment of pro bono
counsel. (DE 26)
The Complaint is brief. Under "Basis for
Jurisdiction," the only allegation is a checked box next
to "U.S. Government Plaintiff." (DE 1 at 2)
The Complaint identifies no cause of action, whether
statutory or common law. The time frame is alleged to be
"2010-present." The "Facts" read, in
their entirety, as follows:
Wrongful termination was forced upon me. I want to be
Newark Public Schools Wrongful Terminated Lynderia S.
Many employees saw/witnessed what happened. [Listing names of
approximately 16 persons]
(DE 1 at 3-4) The injuries are described as "Wrongful
Termination." The Relief demanded is "I want to be
monetary compensated." (DE 1 at 4)
Motion to Dismiss
must be established as a threshold matter. Steel Co. v.
Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118
S.Ct. 1003 (1998). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) may be brought as a facial or factual challenge.
See Church of the Universal Bhd. v. Farmington Twp.
Supervisors, 296 Fed.Appx. 285, 288 (3d Cir. 2008). In
the case of a facial challenge, the standard applied is
similar to that governing an ordinary Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint if it
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of showing
that no claim has been stated. Animal Science Products,
Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462, 469 n.9 (3d
Cir. 2011). For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the
facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as true and all
reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff.
New Jersey Carpenters & the Trustees Thereof v.
Tishman Const. Corp. of New Jersey, 760 F.3d 297, 302
(3d Cir. 2014). Where, as here, the plaintiff sues pro
se, the Court shall construe the allegations of the
Complaint liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007); Haines v. Kemer,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972).
plaintiffs obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his
'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Phillips v.
Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008)
(Rule 8 "requires a 'showing' rather than a
blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief."
(citation omitted)). Thus, the complaint's factual
allegations must be sufficient to raise a plaintiffs right to
relief above a speculative level, so that a claim is
"plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570; see also West Run Student Hous. Assocs., LLC v.
Huntington Nat Bank, 712 F.3d 165, 169 (3d Cir. 2013).
That facial-plausibility standard is met "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 v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 556). While”[t]he plausibility standard
is not akin to a 'probability requirement'. . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility." Id.
deciding a motion to dismiss, a court generally confines its
scrutiny to the pleadings. Nevertheless, items of which the
court may take judicial notice-such as judicial opinions-may
also be ...