United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
S. McElroy United States District Judge
se Plaintiff John Thompson filed a six-count
complaint on September 18, 2019 against the City of
Pawtucket and Ronald Travers in his official capacity as the
City's Zoning Director. Mr. Thompson alleged violations
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution as well as of various provisions of the United
States Code. (ECF No. 1). The defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 6). In response to the
defendants' motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a
Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9)
and a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10). Finally,
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative to Extend
Defendants' Response Time. (ECF No. 12).
reasons set forth below, the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is granted.
complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2). To survive a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Plaintiff need not
present detailed factual allegations, however, the complaint
must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face," Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The First Circuit
applies a two-step analysis to determine whether a complaint
meets this plausibility standard. See A.G. v. Elsevier,
Inc., 732 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 2013). Factual
allegations are separated from legal conclusions and accepted
as true. Any conclusory legal allegations need not be
credited. Id. "The court then must determine
whether the 'factual content. .. allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.'" Morales-Cruz v. Univ. of
P.R., 676 F.3d 220, 224 (1st. Cir. 2012) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
"are solicitous of the obstacles that pro se litigants
face, and while such litigants are not exempt from procedural
rules," courts hold pleadings in such cases to less
stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys.
Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d 154, 158 (1st. Cir. 2008).
However, even pro se complainants must meet the
standards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). See Dutil, 550
F.3d, at 158.
Thompson's complaint alleges violations of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments as well as violations of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 472, 1961, 1962; 22 U.S.C. § 288(a)(c); and
28 U.S.C. § 1609. The gravamen of his complaint is that
the defendants, the City of Pawtucket and its zoning
director, having apparently seized a 2000 Cadillac Deville,
violated his constitutional rights as well as the
above-referenced statutes. It is impossible to ascertain,
from the plaintiff's filings, any specific factual
allegations that would support his claims. The complaint
fails to allege facts that, if true, assert a cognizable
claim. Instead, it relies on a rambling narrative that seems
to be contesting any authority defendants may have had to
take the unspecified action with respect to the 2000 Cadillac
Deville. (ECF No. 1).
complaint in this case is devoid of any factual allegations
indicating an alleged deprivation of Plaintiffs rights or
violation of the law. It is replete with conclusory claims
that are not cognizable causes of action. The allegations are
too vague and conclusory to state a claim against the
defendants that they could understand and to which they could
reasonably be expected to provide an answer. Defendants
cannot be required to answer a complaint that does not
"at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to
whom, when, where, and why." Educadores
Puertorriqueos En Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 68
(1st Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
Plaintiff also filed a motion styled as a Motion for Summary
Judgment that does not appear to meet the criteria of Rule 56
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 10).
However, since defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted,
that motion is denied as moot.
 Although the plaintiffs pleading is
less than clear, he sets forth six claims titled "cause
of action" which the court treats as separate
 ECF No. 9 and ECF No. 10 are identical
documents. For that reason, they will be considered by this
Court as a single objection to the ...