UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ARUN RATTAN, Plaintiff, v. KNOX COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT AND KNOX COUNTY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:12-cv-224 (Varlan/Shirley) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Defendants Knox County General Sessions Court and Knox County, by and through their undersigned attorney, Knox County Law Director Joseph G. Jarret, respectfully provide this memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint. INTRODUCTION In this 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 lawsuit, Arun Rattan alleges that the Knox County General Sessions Court has failed to assign him court-appointed cases and as such, has been denied income as a result. Plaintiff further alleges that he has a right to be assigned cases by the Court. ARGUMENT 1. The complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants, who have absolute judicial immunity in connection with the events alleged in the complaint. Mr. Rattan apparently alleges that, as a result of not receiving court-appointed cases by Knox County General Sessions Court Judges, he has been deprived of a livelihood. It is evident that the plaintiff's only claim against Defendants arises out of the performance of the judges judicial functions, to wit, the assignment of court-appointed cases to qualified attorneys. Case 3:12-cv-00224 Document 4 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 11 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has consistently ruled that, "It is well established that judges and other court officers enjoy absolute immunity from suit on claims arising out of the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions." Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 417 (6th Cir. 1988). In Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 1994), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated: It is well established that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge's judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of any jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam); Id. at 847 (6th Cir. 1994). Because Defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from this ? 1983 lawsuit, Defendants respectfully assert that this Honorable Court must dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 2. The complaint otherwise fails to state any claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted. With respect to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all of a plaintiff's allegations and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See, Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 11-12 (6th Cir. 1987). However, while a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff must provide the grounds for his entitlement to relief, and this "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 2 Case 3:12-cv-00224 Document 4 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 12 The factual allegations supplied must be enough to show a plausible right to relief, and more than bare assertions of legal conclusions are required. In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all of the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory. Id.; Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1988). The complaint does not identify any right that Defendants allegedly violated, and does not allege any specific personal conduct by Defendants that could make them liable under any theory. Plaintiff's complaint offers no more than the type of "labels and conclusions" and "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" the Twombly court criticized as inadequate. The complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief against Defendants that is plausible on its face, and the Court should dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6). CONCLUSION Defendants Knox County General Sessions Court and Knox County respectfully ask the Court to dismiss this claim against them under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) with prejudice. Respectfully submitted. s/Joseph G. Jarret JOSEPH G. JARRET (BPR # 026120) Knox County Law Director Suite 612 City County Building 400 Main Street Knoxville, TN 37902 (865) 215-2327 Attorney for Defendants 3 Case 3:12-cv-00224 Document 4 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 14, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular United States Mail, postage prepaid. Parties may access this filing through the Court's electronic filing system. s/Joseph G. Jarret JOSEPH G. JARRET (BPR # 026120) 4 Case 3:12-cv-00224 Document 4 Filed 05/14/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 14