United States District Court, District of Columbia
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint. For the
reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.
being terminated from his position as a security guard in
January 2015, pro se plaintiff Keith Battle filed
suit against his former employer, Master Security Company,
LLC. Finding that Battle's initial complaint-which
enumerated seven counts without description- did not give
Master Security fair notice of the content of his claims, the
Court granted him leave to file an amended complaint.
second amended complaint (ECF No. 14) provides a
paragraph-long explanation of each claim and attaches several
exhibits. It alleges as follows:
(1) Wrongful Termination
(3) Equal Pay Act
(4) Deceived and Willfully Obstructed from Competing [sic]
(5) Took Personnel Action Because of Exercise of Complaint
and Grievance 2d Am. Compl. at 1.
Security has moved to dismiss this case under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that the second
amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
Court will grant a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the allegations in the complaint
do not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 57 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if
the complaint provides “factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. While
the court “must take all of the factual allegations in
the complaint as true, ” legal conclusions
“couched as . . . factual allegation[s]” do not
warrant the same deference. Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Generally, the Court
cannot consider matters outside the pleadings in deciding a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but it may consider “documents
attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the
complaint.” Ward v. District of Columbia Dep't
of Youth Rehab. Servs., 768 F.Supp.2d 117, 119 (D.D.C.
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed .
. ., and a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Further, a
pro se plaintiff's pleadings must be
“considered in toto” to determine
whether they “set out allegations ...