§Why CasetextPricing

Naples et al v. Stefanelli et al

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the following reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

36 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 260,142 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 273,590 times   368 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Neitzke v. Williams

    490 U.S. 319 (1989)   Cited 56,955 times
    Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"

  4. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services

    436 U.S. 658 (1978)   Cited 68,533 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "local governments] . . . are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

  5. Board of Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown

    520 U.S. 397 (1997)   Cited 12,480 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "high degree of predictability may also support an inference of causation—that the municipality's indifference led directly to the very consequence that was so predictable"

  6. Canton v. Harris

    489 U.S. 378 (1989)   Cited 16,606 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the city could be held liable for failing to train police officers in determining whether detainees needed medical care because of the likelihood that, absent proper training, the officers would default on their constitutional obligations

  7. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,490 times   177 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

  8. Harris v. Mills

    572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 6,800 times
    Holding that notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of constitutionally protected interest coupled with Article 78 post-deprivation remedy satisfied due process

  9. Castle Rock v. Gonzales

    545 U.S. 748 (2005)   Cited 1,405 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a benefit is not a protected interest if government officials have discretion to grant or deny it

  10. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.

    282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 6,388 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding extrinsic materials were not "integral" to the complaint because the complaint "d[id] not refer to the[m]" and "plaintiffs apparently did not rely on them in drafting it"

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 496,982 times   701 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 354,229 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  13. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 160,289 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  14. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 39,551 times   328 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  15. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 15,089 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

  16. Section 145.00 - Criminal mischief in the fourth degree

    N.Y. Penal Law § 145.00   Cited 473 times

    A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she: 1. Intentionally damages property of another person; or 2. Intentionally participates in the destruction of an abandoned building as defined in section one thousand nine hundred seventy-one-a of the real property actions and proceedings law; or 3. Recklessly damages property of another person in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty