Bock v. Gold

¶ 1. Plaintiff Gordon Bock appeals from the superior court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The procedural history may be briefly stated. Plaintiffs amended complaint against several named Department of Corrections (DOC) employees alleged four common-law causes of action — assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress — and a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs amended complaint failed to state a claim. V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the motion in May 2006, basing the dismissal in part on the theory that “an inmate on furlough status remains in the custody of the DOC,” and that furlough status “is not probation or parole, and an inmate has no right to it or liberty interest in it.” The court subsequently vacated that ruling and issued an amended decision on the motion to dismiss.

¶ 2. In the amended ruling, the court again concluded — for substantially the same reasons as before — that plaintiffs amended complaint failed to state claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court went on to dismiss plaintiffs § 1983 claim, this time on two bases: (1) that the false-imprisonment claim on which the § 1983 claim appeared to be premised had already been rejected, and (2) that plaintiffs citation of Krupp v. Krupp, 126 Vt. 511, 236 A.2d 653 (1967), did not raise a viable claim under § 1983. The court’s ruling on the § 1983 claim was:

Finally, [plaintiff] has not alleged any cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. In the amended complaint, [plaintiff] generally states that he intends a claim based on his false imprisonment, and various nonspecific constitutional violations. The false imprisonment claim has been rejected. In his memorandum, [plaintiff] appears to base his [§] 1983 claim on what he believes to be a due process violation in the furlough revocation hearing, as purportedly described in Krupp v. Krupp. . . . Krupp, however, is a divorce case, and does not address due process or furlough revocation proceedings. [Plaintiff] appears to rely on the portion of Krupp in which the Vermont Supreme Court rejected the findings of the trial court because they merely recited testimony, and did not have the appearance of reflecting the trial judge’s true findings____The Court held that a “recitation of evidence in findings is not a finding of the facts contained in the testimony related and it cannot be so construed.” . . . The court perceives no viable [§] 1983 claim.

*576¶ 3. Plaintiff appealed, briefing only the § 1983 claim on appeal. Accordingly, we consider only whether the trial court erred in dismissing the § 1983 claim. See R. Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Int’l Harvester Corp., 142 Vt. 140, 142, 453 A.2d 83, 84 (1982) (claims not briefed on appeal are waived).

¶ 4. We review the trial court’s disposition of a motion to dismiss de novo, and may affirm on any appropriate ground. See Levinsky v. Diamond, 151 Vt. 178, 185, 559 A.2d 1073, 1079 (1989), overruled on other grounds by Muzzy v. State, 155 Vt. 279, 280 n.*, 583 A.2d 82, 83 n.* (1990). Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are disfavored and should be rarely granted. Endres v. Endres, 2006 VT 108, ¶ 4, 180 Vt. 640, 912 A.2d 975 (mem.). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper only when it is beyond doubt that there exist no facts or circumstances consistent with the complaint that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Joerg, 2003 VT 27, ¶ 4, 175 Vt. 196, 824 A.2d 586. Put another way, the threshold a plaintiff must cross in order to meet our notice-pleading standard is “exceedingly low.” Henniger v. Pinellas County, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 1998). In reviewing the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, we take all facts alleged in the complaint as true. Amiot v. Ames, 166 Vt. 288, 291, 693 A.2d 675, 677 (1997).

¶ 5. The “no set of facts” standard also applies in the civil-rights context. Kaluczky v. City of White Plains, 57 F.3d 202, 206 (2d Cir. 1995). There is no heightened pleading standard for claims arising under § 1983. Cf. Leatheman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1993) (federal courts may not impose heightened pleading standards on § 1983 litigants who raise claims against municipalities).

The [Vermont] rule, which applies to all affirmative pleadings, omits the requirement of the former statute that “the facts relied upon” be pleaded, requiring instead “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” language closer to that of former Chancery Rule 3. The new language emphasizes that the rules do not require a specific and detailed statement of the facts which constitute a cause of action, but simply a statement clear’ enough “to give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which it rests.”

Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 8. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim had to satisfy only the liberal requirements of Rule 8 in order to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss.* We turn now to the question of whether it did.

¶ 6. Plaintiffs amended complaint averred, as to § 1983, as follows:

Defendants by the actions they took, or failed to take, as enumerated supra, did thus commit numerous violations of 42 U.S.C. [§] 1983 through repeated and flagrant abrogation of Plaintiffs civil rights under Amendments V, VI and XIV of the United States Constitution — as well as those in Article I, Chapter 10 of the Vermont Constitution — by ordering and continuing Plaintiffs false and wrongful imprisonment.

For their breach the Defendants should be held accountable. *577The Defendants through a confluence of their actions in abusing discretion as public officials did repeatedly and flagrantly abrogate Plaintiffs civil rights under Amendments V, VI and XIV of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Chapter 10 of the Vermont Constitution.

¶ 7. The “actions . . . enumerated supra” included alleged due-process violations at the DOC proceedings leading to plaintiffs furlough revocation. Plaintiff also alleged that “every named Defendant participated in the decision to incarcerate plaintiff at a different level of the department. Plaintiffs incarceration through the abuse of discretion by the named Defendants was wrongful. These eo-Defendants conspired to incarcerate Plaintiff wrongfully.” Plaintiffs amended complaint also included a “Statement of Pacts” in which plaintiff specifically described each named defendant’s alleged role in his incarceration. That section of the complaint referred to plaintiff being “placed in confinement by the D.O.C. on allegations that were baseless” and to his “false and wrongful imprisonment.”

¶ 8. The trial court erred in dismissing the § 1983 claim against the named defendants in their individual capacities. Taken as a whole, plaintiffs amended complaint stated a challenge to the process afforded him before his furlough was revoked. While the complaint is not a model of legal clarity, it did suffice to place defendants on notice of Bock’s general claim: that he was not afforded the necessary process before his furlough was revoked. The complaint need not give “a specific and detailed statement of the facts constituting the cause of action.” Levinsky v. Diamond, 140 Vt. 595, 600, 442 A.2d 1277, 1280 (1982). If greater specificity were required, defendants could have compelled it by motion for a more definite statement. See V.R.C.P. 12(e).

¶ 9. Defendants also contend that the amended complaint was insufficient because § 1983 claims are not maintainable against state employees in their official capacities. As plaintiff concedes, this is true. See Shields v. Gerhart, 155 Vt. 141, 150, 582 A.2d 153, 158-59 (1990) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims against state employees in their official capacities). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs § 1983 claim against defendants in their official capacities. The amended complaint also named defendants in their individual capacities, however, and insofar as it did so was sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) (“Thus, ‘[o]n the merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.’ ” (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985)).

¶ 10. Similarly, to the extent that plaintiffs § 1983 claims were premised on violations of the Vermont Constitution, they were properly dismissed. See Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 139 (1988) (“Section 1983 creates a species of liability in favor of persons deprived of their federal civil rights by those wielding state authority.” (emphasis added)).

¶ 11. Our holding that plaintiffs amended complaint should — to the extent it alleged violations of his federal civil rights by the named defendants in their individual capacities — have survived the motion to dismiss does not depend on the materials purportedly incorporated by reference into the amended complaint, but rests on the language of the complaint itself. Defendants are plainly correct that the rules allow incorporation by reference only of materials in the same matter. See V.R.C.P 10(c) (“Statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a differ*578ent part of the same pleading or in another pleading or in any motion in the same action.” (emphasis added)). The amended complaint purported to incorporate all of plaintiffs filings and one named exhibit in a related matter he filed in the same court, and plaintiff in his brief here also claims to have incorporated by reference “his U.S. District Court action in Bock v. Gold.” None of these incorporations is possible under the rules.

¶ 12. Finally, plaintiff contends, citing Rule 15, that dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) must be made with leave to replead, rather than with prejudice. In light of our conclusion that the amended complaint was sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss, we need not reach the issue.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.