Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_15-cv-01029/USCOURTS-alnd-2_15-cv-01029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STACY LYNN SANDERS, )

PLAINTIFF, )

VS. ) 2:15-cv-1029-JHH

DR. JAMIE CANNON, et al., )

DEFENDANTS. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has before it two motions to dismiss. The first is the June 18, 2015

Motion (Doc. #3) to Dismiss filed by Defendant Dr. Jamie Cannon. On June 23,

2015, the court entered an order explaining why the Motion (Doc. #3) to Dismiss was

due to be granted, and gave Plaintiff until July 28, 2015 to show cause why it should

not. (See Doc. # 6.)

The second motion was filed on June 23, 2015 Motion (Doc. #7) to Dismiss

filed by the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (incorrectly named in the

complaint asthe University of Alabama inBirminghamand as University of Alabama

Hospital). On June 25, 2015, the court entered an order explaining why this Motion

(Doc. #7) was due to be granted, and again gave Plaintiff until July 28, 2015 to show

cause why it should not. (See Doc. # 8.)

FILED

 2015 Aug-05 PM 12:02

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:15-cv-01029-JHH Document 10 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 2
On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Answer (Doc. #9) to the Show Cause order,

addressing both Motionsto Dismiss.

1 After a thorough examination of the arguments

contained in Plaintiff’s Answer, the court in unpersuaded in its original analysis that

the Motions to Dismiss are due to be granted. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

court’sJune 23, 2015 and June 25, 2015 orders(Docs. # 6 & 8), as well asthe reasons

articulated by Defendants in their Motions to Dismiss (Docs. # 3 & 7), the court

intends to grant both motions to dismiss. 

A separate order will be entered.

DONE this the 5th day of August, 2015.

 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 Contained within the Answer was an argument that the case should be remanded. If the

court were to construe the Answer as a motion to remand, it would be DENIED. The case is

properly before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. (See Doc. #1.)

2

Case 2:15-cv-01029-JHH Document 10 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 2