This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
25
however, as previously indicated, it appears to be directed at
the City Defendants, and it alleges a deprivation o f civil
rights under color of state law, in violation of th e ―laws,
statutes [and] the United States Constitution . . . .‖ Compl. ¶
15.16 It is beyond dispute that the Complaint is ― not a model of
the careful drafter‘ s art ‖; however, even post -Twombly, a
complaint need not skillfully articulate the precis e legal
theory on which relief is sought as long as the fac ts presented
therein plausibly state an identifiable right to re lief.
Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1296 (2011). Although this
Court does not doubt that a motion for a more defin ite statement
regarding Count One would have merit, dismissal of Count One is
not appropriate solely based on its lack of clarity . Rather,
when considered in conjunction with the preceding f actual
narrative, Count One sufficiently reflects an attem pt to state a
claim for relief under § 1983 and the Fourth Amendm ent to the
United States Constitution. Accordingly, Count One is construed
as seeking to assert a § 1983 claim against the Cit y Defendants,
16 The broad language of Count One also references vio lations of
Virginia‘s s tatutes and constitution; however, Plaintiff fails
to indicate what Virginia statute or constitutional provision
provides a right to relief. As this Court is unawa re of any
cause of action under Virginia law to which Count O ne could be
referring to assert a viable claim, and in any case Plaintiff
has not plausibly asserted such a claim, Count One is construed
solely as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)