United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Kimberly A. Jolson, Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER
A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant United States
Navy's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 4); and Plaintiff Kyle
Rohrig's ("Plaintiff') Response in Opposition
(ECF No. 8). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's
Motion is GRANTED. (ECF No. 4).
action arises from divorce proceedings between Plaintiff and
his former spouse. Plaintiff is or was a member of the United
States Military. (Compl. ¶ 1). Plaintiffs former spouse
was a Petty Officer in the United States Navy.
(Id.). On October 11, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, filed a Complaint which states, in its
entirety, the following:
1. The United States Navy aided in the coverup of false
accusations in Divorce Court only by a Naval Petty Office
after she was properly trained on how to report it and
Plaintiff was stationed not only on active duty but on the
other side of country on military orders well before
accusations occurred. Navy failed to bring up charges and
said she accused me on her own time but sent a Command Master
Chief up for UCMJ Charges for Facebook messages breaking said
military laws as the other Petty Officer did too.
2. They also failed to properly train their Ombudsman's
of USS Whidbey Island specifically denying Plaintiff spousal
benefits illegally stating he had to go thru court which he
did not have to as per their boss Command Master Chief Mene
(CMC of USS Whidbey Island).
3. The USS Whidbey Island and Regional Legal Office or Little
Creek wrote me off as a disgruntle spouse trying to show the
perjury, deleting of evidence, and lying to her own chain of
command because Plaintiff was accused of abuse by the Petty
Officer and a male in gender origin.
4. The Regional Legal Office of Little Creek also tailed to
turn over things sent to my wife and her command on my behalf
since they could not represent me in court. Which means they
have to turn over my client folder but accused me of
threatening them for failing to do so because Plaintiff was a
male accused of abuse in divorce only. Even the Department
Head agreed I had the right to be angry because of the
illegal activity of withholding that there was no client
folder while acting like there was one by the legal office.
Now comes Plaintiff seeking $10 million dollars in tax free
money since the Navy can do that for false accusations,
mental health of rough adjustment to civilian life by Naval
Petty Officer, aiding Petty Officer in rough adjustment to
civilian life after breaking said UCMJ laws by that Petty
(Id. ¶ 1-4).
March 1, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff moved for default judgment
in two separate motions. (ECF Nos. 5 & 6). On May 29,
2019, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs Motions (ECF Nos. 5 & 6) and extending
Plaintiffs time to respond to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed his Response in
Opposition on June 3, 2019. (ECF No. 8). Defendant did not
reply. Consequently, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
ripe for review.
determine whether a complaint states a claim upon which
relief can be granted, the Court must: (1) accept the factual
allegations contained in the pleadings as true, and (2)
determine whether the factual allegations present any
plausible claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroftv, Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) (clarifying the plausibility standard articulated
in Twombly). "A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678. The factual allegations of a pleading "must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level..." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Consequently, a complaint will not be dismissed pursuant to
rule 12(b)(6) unless there is no law to support the claims
made, the facts alleged are insufficient to state a claim, or
there is an insurmountable bar on the face of the complaint.
"Pro se complaints are to be held 'to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by ...