United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Mattin Zargarpur, Individually as a citizen of the United States, Plaintiff, Pro se, Woodbridge, VA.
For Dennis Townsend, Probation and Parole Officer, Danny White, Senior Probation and Parole Officer, Ron Cavanaugh, Chief Probation and Parole Officer, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, Defendants: Lara Kate Jacobs Todd, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the Attorney General (Richmond), Richmond, VA.
James C. Cacheris, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Dennis Townsend, Danny White, Ron Cavanaugh, and Kenneth Cuccinelli's (collectively " Defendants" ) Motion to Dismiss (" Motion" ). [Dkt. 18.] For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion.
The facts of this case are recounted in the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated September 24, 2013, familiarity with which is presumed. In brief, Plaintiff Mattin Zargarpur (" Plaintiff" ) had an illicit affair with his teacher, Tina Amato (" Amato" ), while a student at her school. (Compl. [Dkt. 1] ¶ 4.) Amato pled guilty to several charges associated with this relationship in 2012. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Amato is currently prohibited from communicating with Plaintiff as part of her probation. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff wishes to engage in a romantic relationship with Amato and alleges that this restriction infringes upon his " rights to enjoy the freedom of association and the freedom of intimate association guaranteed [to him] by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." (Compl. ¶ 13.) In addition to damages, Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing this condition of Amato's probation. (Compl. ¶ 18.)
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 1.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this suit, and, alternatively, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Defs.' Mem. in Supp. [Dkt. 19] at 2-3.) Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on the morning of oral argument. (Pl.'s Objection to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss (" Pl.'s Resp." ) [Dkts. 23-24] at 1.) In addition to disputing Defendants' position, Plaintiff's brief asks the Court to reconsider its prior ruling on his motion for a preliminary injunction. (Pl.'s Resp. at 1.) This matter is now ripe for disposition.
II. Standard of Review
A. Rule 12(b)(1)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs the dismissal of an action where the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants may attack subject matter jurisdiction in one of two ways. First, defendants may contend, as is the case here, that the complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction may be based. See Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982); King v. Riverside Reg'l Med. Ctr., 211 F.Supp.2d 779, 780 (E.D. Va. 2002). In such instances, all facts alleged in the complaint are presumed true. Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219; Virginia v. United States, 926 F.Supp. 537, 540 (E.D. Va. 1995).
Second, defendants may argue that the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint are untrue. Adams, 697 F.2d at 1219; King, 211 F.Supp.2d at 780. In that situation, " the Court may 'look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.'" Virginia, 926 ...