Court is Defendant Sobol's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion, courts apply the same standard as that applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 150 (2d Cir. 1994). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the well-pleaded facts as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Id. The court should not dismiss the complaint "'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id. (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)).
Furthermore, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion should also be read in the context of the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and "although the court reads pro se complaints as broadly as possible to find a valid claim, the complaint, nonetheless, must satisfy the minimum pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)." Gould v. Russi, 830 F. Supp. 139, 142 (N.D.N.Y. 1993). Rule 8(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the complaint must set forth "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "In other words, even though a pro se plaintiff's complaint is not held to the same standard as one prepared by an experienced attorney, courts still require that, at a minimum, a pro se plaintiff adhere to Rule 8(a) and sufficiently apprise a defendant of the charges asserted against it." Gould, 830 F. Supp. at 142-43. Further, "baldly conclusory statements that fail to give notice of the bare events of which the plaintiff complains need not be credited by the court." Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F. Supp. 1185, 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
In the present case, Plaintiff's complaint makes wholly conclusory allegations that Defendant Sobol "failed and neglected to insure that [sic] the rights of Plaintiff's son, Steven, under the IEP requirements and other provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts [sic] and regulations, or to take any affirmative measures to remedy the actions of the local school district, the CCSD, thereby denying Plaintiff's son, Steven, the right to due process under the law." Plaintiff's Complaint, P 50.
"Although the court is obligated to look for a valid claim and accept the alleged facts supporting the claim as true, it is not the court's responsibility to breathe life into an action where none exists." Gould, 830 F. Supp. at 143. In Plaintiff's complaint, he fails to allege facts to support his conclusory allegation that Defendant Sobol "failed and neglected" to ensure the rights of Steven under the IDEA. Specifically, the complaint fails to state which rights under the IDEA Defendant Sobol failed to protect, and how Defendant Sobol failed and neglected to ensure these rights. As to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Sobol failed to take affirmative measures to remedy the actions of the CCSD, Plaintiff fails to allege when and how Defendant Sobol failed to take these measures.
Therefore, because Plaintiff fails to offer facts supporting his claim that Defendant Sobol violated the IDEA, and fails to apprise Defendant Sobol of the underlying facts supporting his claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As a result, Defendant Sobol is entitled to judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c).
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the CCSD Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant Sobol's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, and that the complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 1997
Syracuse, New York
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
United States District Judge