United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS
Marvin J. Garbis, United States District Judge
The Court has before it Defendant Anne Arundel County, Maryland’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 3], Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Claims and for Partial Stay of Discovery [ECF No. 12], and the materials submitted by the parties relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
In this case, Plaintiff Edwin Drury asserts state and federal law claims against Anne Arundel County, Maryland (“the County”) and Defendants Officer P. Dziwanowski and Corporal W. Hicks (the “Active Defendants”) in connection with certain events occurring on or about April 13, 2014. The Active Defendants have filed their Answer [ECF No. 10].
Plaintiff asserts the following claims against the County:
Count II - False Arrest
Count III - False Imprisonment
Count VII - Violation of Md. Declaration of Rights
Count IX - Inadequate Supervision
Count X - Monell Claim
By the instant motion, the County seeks dismissal of all charges against it.
II. DISMISSAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. A complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). When evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. However, conclusory statements or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice. Id. A complaint must allege sufficient facts to “cross ‘the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Inquiry into whether a complaint states a plausible claim is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Francis, 588 F.3d at 193. Thus, if the well-pleaded facts contained within a complaint “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is ...