The opinion of the court was delivered by: James E. Shadid United States District Judge
Wednesday, 20 April, 2011 09:48:09 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This matter is now before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss by Defendant, Peoria County Sheriff's Department. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss [#3] is GRANTED.
On February 8, 2011, Plaintiff, Jason Cohee ("Cohee"), filed this action against Defendant. The precise nature of his 14-page "Notarized Complaint" is unclear, as it consists largely of series of incoherent assertions and unrelated events. He alludes to seeking the assistance of the Illinois State Police and Illinois National Guard to effect martial law. He then makes references to being injured when his girlfriend threw a bowl of soup at his head and giving a false statement to the responding officer to keep his girlfriend from being arrested. Cohee asserts that Defendant failed to arrest his girlfriend, failed to secure a crime scene, and negligently left "a psychologically disrupted soul on the streets to endanger the public welfare." He also refers to unfair treatment by the judge in his state court divorce matter and claims "malicious willful and wanton gross negligence for extortion, battery, and mental cruelty levied upon Judge Stephen Kouri." Finally, he makes a stray reference to discrimination against an individual on the basis of his disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act. He seeks relief in the form of confiscating the responding officer's badge and firearms and punitive damages "to punish the Union for its malicious conduct."
Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motions are fully briefed, and this Order follows.
Courts have traditionally held that a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears from the pleadings that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957); Gould v. Artisoft, Inc., 1 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 1993). Rather, a complaint should be construed broadly and liberally in conformity with the mandate in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f). More recently, the Supreme Court has phrased this standard as requiring a showing sufficient "to raise a right to relief beyond a speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Furthermore, the claim for relief must be "plausible on its face." Id.; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1953 (2009).
For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; its well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true, and all reasonably-drawn inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984); Lanigan v. Village of East Hazel Crest, 110 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1997); M.C.M. Partners, Inc. V. Andrews-Bartlett & Assoc., Inc., 62 F.3d 967, 969 (7th Cir. 1995); Early v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 959 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1992).
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction, and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled ...