Source: http://vt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170627_0000078.DVT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:37:27+00:00

Document:
Presently before the Court is Hashim's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 17.) All parties have consented to direct assignment to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 7, 16.) See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, Hashim's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED, and Brewer's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
The parties are largely in agreement regarding the relevant facts. Where they disagree (see, e.g., Doc. 21 at 1), for purposes of ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in Brewer's Complaint (Doc. 1), as summarized below. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
On 04/08/2013, at approximately 1:30am, a member of the Vermont State Police performed a motor vehicle stop at mile marker 14.4, on I-91. The operator of the vehicle, identified as Mr. Robert Taylor Brewer, 64, was found to be in possession of a .40 caliber handgun. Further investigation revealed that Mr. Brewer has a prior conviction of domestic assault which, under federal law, prohibits him from possessing a firearm. The firearm was seized by the Vermont State Police, and the investigation is ongoing.
This is not the first legal action Brewer has brought in connection with his April 8, 2013 traffic stop: he filed a case involving substantially similar facts in the Northern District of New York on July 31, 2014. See Brewer v. Rutland Herald, No. 3:14-cv-958 (GLS/DEP), 2016 WL 4435232, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2016); see also No. 3:14-cv-958, ECF No. 1 (Complaint). In that action, Brewer listed as defendants the Rutland Herald and Brattleboro Reformer newspapers, two employees of the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center, four Google employees, Hashim, and others. Brewer, No. 3:14-cv-958, ECF No. 1 at 1, 2016 WL 4435232, at *1. At Brewer's specific request, however, Hashim was not served in that lawsuit and the period for proper service was allowed to lapse. Brewer, 2016 WL 4435232, at *1 n.1. Accordingly, on August 18, 2016, the claims against Hashim were dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve. Id. The court stated as follows with respect to that dismissal: “At the request of Brewer, defendant Hashim . . . ha[s] not been served by the Unite[d] States Marshals Service. Service has not been otherwise made on [Hashim], and, at this point, well over  days has elapsed since the initial filing against them. Accordingly, the court dismisses Hashim . . . without prejudice.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Brewer's claims against the remaining defendants in that case were dismissed on the same date, but on different grounds. Id. at *6.
On December 9, 2016, Brewer filed this case in the Northern District of New York. (Doc. 1.) Finding that venue was improper in that district, the court transferred the case here, to the District of Vermont, where “the events giving rise to [Brewer's] claims occurred” and where Hashim “presumably” resides. (Doc. 4 at 3-4.) On February 21, 2017, Brewer filed a “Motion to Set Aside Forfeiture, ” seeking the “return and repatriation of [the] firearm” taken from his vehicle during the vehicle stop in April 2013. (Doc. 10 at 6.) About a week later, on March 2, 2017, Brewer filed an “Amended Motion to Set Aside Forfeiture; to Cure Improper Service, ” seeking the same relief sought in the initial “Motion to Set Aside Forfeiture” and requesting “the immediate return of [his] firearm” or a “check in the amount of $450” to compensate him for the loss of his weapon and related costs. (Doc. 14 at 8.) A few days after that filing, on March 6, 2017, Hashim filed the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17), addressed herein. Thereafter, Brewer filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21), and Hashim filed a Reply to the Opposition (Doc. 23).
Hashim's Motion to Dismiss is brought, in part, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). “To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Although plausibility is not a ‘probability requirement, ' [p]laintiffs must allege facts that permit ‘more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.'” Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218, 233 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

References: § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.