United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
MICHELLE L. ARCHDALE, Plaintiff,
THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCY, et al. Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
JAMES E. SHADID, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Katherine M. O'Hara ("O'Hara"), Paul G. Sebesta ("Sebesta"), Todd J. Ward ("Ward"), and Christy G. Gibson's ("Gibson") Motions to Dismiss . This motion is fully briefed and for the reasons set forth below, Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff Michelle Archdale ("Archdale") filed a pro se Complaint alleging she was deprived of due process and denied equal protection under the law. Specifically, Archdale alleges as follows:
Defendant O'Hara, Director of the National Center for Agricultural Utilization ("NCAUR") violated Archdale's due process rights by drafting a letter that forced Archdale to use her annual sick and when she cared for her pregnant daughter and son who suffered from muscular dystrophy.
Defendant Sebesta, Director of NCAUR is accused of refusing to allow Archdale to work after 6:00 P.M. when she arrived to work after 10:00 A.M.
Defendant Ward, Research Leader with the NCAUAR, allegedly ignored an agreement between ARS and AFGE Local 3247. Archdale alleges Ward injured, oppressed, threatened, or intimidated her, in violation of Constitution, when he warned her about arriving to work late.
Defendant Gibson, administrative officer of NCAUR, allegedly conspired with the other Defendants to deprive her of due process rights or equal protection by ignoring an agreement between ARS and AFGE Local 3247 regarding medical documentation, thus forcing Archdale to take leave or leave without pay.
Archdale seeks $527, 000 in compensatory damages for bodily harm, emotional harm, pain and suffering, loss of income, and loss of enjoyment of life. Archdale also seeks punitive damages.
1. Legal Standard
Court 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 Rule 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, 100 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 1997); M.C.M. Partners, Inc. v. ...