COATES v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SAVANNAH et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
KESHEL S. COATES, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-402 (MTT)
)
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SAVANNAH, 	)
CARRIE JANE WILLIAMSON in her 	)
official and individual capacities, 	)
SIS. CHERYL HILLIG 	)
Administrator of Saint Peter Claver 	)
Catholic School of Macon, Georgia, in 	)
her official and individual capacities, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. ECF 7. In an effort to afford the plaintiff, Keshel
Coates, who is proceeding pro se, adequate notice and time to respond to the
defendants’ motion, the following notice is given. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d
822 (11th Cir. 1985). If Coates wishes to respond, she must do so no later than
TWENTY-ONE DAYS from the receipt of this Order.1
If Coates does not timely respond to the motion to dismiss, the Court may
dismiss her claims against the defendants. Under the procedures and policies of this
Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. Coates may submit her
argument to this Court by filing a brief in opposition to the defendants’ motion to
1 The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the motion to dismiss (ECF 7) to Coates at her last known
address. Thereafter, all notices or other papers may be served on Coates directly by mail at her last
known address.
Case 5:25-cv-00402-MTT Document 15 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 3

-2-
dismiss. Unless the Court has granted prior permission, any brief should not exceed 20
pages. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4.
The Court evaluates a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim using
the following standard:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). To avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter … 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, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when “the court [can] draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
“Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability fall short of
being facially plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
At the motion to dismiss stage, “all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and
the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” FindWhat Inv. Grp. v. FindWhat.com., 658 F.3d 1282, 1296 (11th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). But “conclusory allegations,
unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not
prevent dismissal.” Wiersum v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 785 F.3d 483, 485 (11th Cir. 2015)
(cleaned up). The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the … claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Where there are dispositive issues of law, a court may
Case 5:25-cv-00402-MTT Document 15 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 3

-3-
dismiss a claim regardless of the alleged facts. Patel v. Specialized Loan Servicing,
LLC, 904 F.3d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018).
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of November, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00402-MTT Document 15 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 3