Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00689-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

MERY THOMAS, as next friend to )

minor child X, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:05-cv-689-W

) (WO)

CITY OF VALLEY, ALA., et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on Defendant ’s M ot ion to Dismiss (Doc. #3) filed on

July 27, 2005. For the reasons set out below, the motion is due to be granted in part.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Plaint iff originally filed a complaint in this action in state court on July 7, 2005,

alleging state law claims of negligence, out rage, breach of implied contract, wantonness,

mental distress, vicarious liability and failure to provide services. Plaintiff also brings a 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging that Defendants have violated the constitution. On July 27,

2005, Defendants removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question jurisdict ion), and filed an answer (Doc. #4) and motion to dismiss (Doc. #3).

Plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and Defendant s filed

Case 3:05-cv-00689-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 6
2

a renewed motion to dismiss (Doc. #11) on September 14, 2005. 

The facts alleged in Plaint iff’s complaint are as follows: On February 5, 2005, “X,”

a 13-year-old black female, was walking to a friend’s house. She was approached by two

men who chased her down a dirt road and into a wooded area, where they raped her. X was

taken to a medical facility by her stepfather, and the Valley Police Department was alerted.

Detective Frank Montroy arrived and questioned X. The det ect ive’s manner of questioning

was abrasive and frightening, and X “changed her story” while talking to him. Detective

Montroy then told the medical facility not to conduct a “rape kit.” He made the statement

that this was “just a case of a typical 13 y ear old black girl having sex.” The next day, X’s

mother took X’s t orn clothing and underwear to the police station. X showed her parents

the scene of the rape, and they found a broken necklace and earring belonging to her.

Detective Montroy has not pursued an investigation of the rape. He told X’s mot her t hat

he report ed the incident to the Department of Human Resources, but in fact, he did not. X

is undergoing counseling and has experienced difficulties sleeping and concentrating

during school. She suffers from fear and anxiety.

II. STANDARD

A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim only if it is clear that no

relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the

allegations in the complaint. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). In

Case 3:05-cv-00689-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 6
3

evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court will accept as true all well-p leaded factual

allegations and will view them in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hishon,

467 U.S. at 73; Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002).

At the motion to dismiss stage, the court may not consider the parties’ briefs, affidavits or

supplement ary mat t ers that fall outside the plaintiff’s complaint. Milburn v. United States,

734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 1984). The threshold is “ exceedingly low” for a complaint to

survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Ancata v . Prison Health Servs., Inc.,

769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir. 1985). 

III. DISCUSSION

The court first considers Plaintiff’s federal law claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff alleges the following claim against the Defendants:

Defendants violated X’s constitutional rights by failing to

invest igate an alleged rape, failing to collect material evidence,

failing t o conduct follow-up investigations of possible

witnesses, failing to conduct a “rape kit” and allowing key

physical evidence to be destroyed and or lost.

Plaintiff claims the Defendants treated her unequally due to her

membership in the racial class of African-American. Which was

evident in Defendant Montroy’s racial [comment] “this is just

a case of a t y p ical 13 year old black girl having sex.” Plaintiff

claims that Montroy had made up his mind not to investigate

the rape allegations of X, just because she was a black girl.

Plaintiff claims she was discriminated against by denial of

police protection and or services due to her race.

Case 3:05-cv-00689-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/01/05 Page 3 of 6
4

Complaint at ¶¶ 31-33. 

Defendants maintain that Plaint iff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be

granted, asserting that there is no constitut ional right to investigation of a crime. See

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989)

(“Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process

Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may

be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government it self

may not deprive the individual”). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in

Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, when it held that “a benefit is not a protected

entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.” Town of Castle

Rock, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 2803 (2005). In the same case, the Court also noted that,

“[i]n other contexts, we have explained that ‘a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable

int erest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.’” Id. at 2809 (quoting Linda R.S.

v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)). Accordingly, in the present case, the Plaintiff has

no standing to claim a constitutional violation for the failure of Det ective Montroy or the

City of Valley to investigate her claim of rape. 

Further, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficiently any

constit ut ional violation under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The equal protection clause commands that no state shall deny to any person within its

Case 3:05-cv-00689-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/01/05 Page 4 of 6
5

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Williams v. City of Montgomery, 21 F. Supp.

2d 1360, 1365 (M .D. Ala. 1998) (citing City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center,

473 U.S. 432 (1985)). “In order to maintain a claim for violation of equal protection, a

plaintiff must show that similarly situated persons were treated dissimilarly .” Id. In this

case, the Plaint iff alleges that X was denied equal treatment by Defendants because of her

race. She claims that Detective Montroy’s statement that she was “a typical 13 year old

black girl having sex” demonstrates bias, and that she was treated unequally as a result .

However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that she was treated differently from other,

similarly situated people – specifically, that Defendants have investigat ed or pursued

similar claims more rigorously. See Swanson v. Pitt, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1277 (M.D. Ala.

2004) (Finding that t he p laintiff did not state an equal protection claim where he failed to

allege that the defendants treated him differently from anyone else). See also GJR

Investments, Inc. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998) (Finding

that the plaintiff’s complaint was insufficient where it did “not allege unequal treatment or

discriminatory motive on the part of the defendants”). The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges

only that Detective Montroy made a statement in which he mentioned X’s age, race and

gender. While the court recognizes that the “notice pleading” standard of t he Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure does not generally require heightened, fact -sp ecific pleading, the

rules do require that minimum facts be pled that will state a cognizable claim. See

Case 3:05-cv-00689-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/01/05 Page 5 of 6
1

 The court will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s state law claims until Plaintiff has either filed an

amended complaint or declined to do so. 

6

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (“A pleading ... shall contain ... (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief ...”). In this case, the Plaintiff has not met this

relatively low burden and, therefore, her Complaint does not state a claim for a

constitutional violation upon which relief can be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. #3) and Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) are GRANTED as to

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice.1

 Plaintiff may

file an amended complaint that more fully alleges her equal p rotection claim on or before

November 10, 2005.

DONE, this 1st day of November, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00689-SRW Document 14 Filed 11/01/05 Page 6 of 6