Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00258/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00258-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

BEN LATHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANCHORAGE MUNICIPALITY 

PEOPLE MOVER, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-SLG

ORDER

At Docket 31, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Latham has 

responded with a Motion to Compel Discovery Prior to Filing a Reply to Motion to 

Dismiss and a Motion for an Extension of Time at Dockets 32 and 34, respectively. 

Defendants filed a non-opposition to the Motion for an Extension of Time.1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) allows defendants to raise initial 

defenses to a complaint, such as lack of jurisdiction, insufficient service, or failure 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.2 A motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal 

sufficiency of the claims in the complaint. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 

1 Docket 36.

2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).

Case 3:19-cv-00258-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-SLG, Latham v. Acton, et al.

Order

Page 2 of 3

to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

3

 A claim is plausible on its face “when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

4

 Thus, there 

must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

5

When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court considers only the complaint

and those documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, as well as 

matters on which a court may take judicial notice.6 A court “accept[s] factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party.”7 Here, Defendants have not attached any 

additional materials outside of the pleadings to their motion to dismiss.8 Therefore, 

there is no need for Mr. Latham to have any discovery provided to him in order for 

him to respond to Defendants’ motion. The Court will determine the motion based 

solely on the parties’ legal arguments and based on its review of Mr. Latham’s First 

Amended Complaint at Docket 25. 

3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

4

Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 

5

Id. 

6 Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)).

7 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).

8

It is for that reason that the Court has caused to be withdrawn the Notice that the 

Clerk’s Office issued at Docket 37.

Case 3:19-cv-00258-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-SLG, Latham v. Acton, et al.

Order

Page 3 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, the Motion to Compel Discovery Prior to 

Filing a Reply to Motion to Dismiss at Docket 32 is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for good cause appearing, the Motion for 

an Extension of Time at Docket 34 is GRANTED. Mr. Latham has 30 days from 

the date of this order to file his response to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to 

State a Claim. 

DATED this 5

th day of March, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00258-SLG Document 38 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 3