Sarah Moore v. Patrick Deakins, in his official capacity as Washington County Judge; Washington County, Arkansas; and Returning Home, Inc.

Summary

The court grants Washington County defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Sarah Moore’s illegal-exaction and equal-protection claims without prejudice. The court holds that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege that the County violated federal procurement requirements or Arkansas’s single-source procurement documentation requirements in awarding substance-abuse-treatment funds to Returning Home. The equal-protection claim also fails because Moore did not allege intentional discrimination or that she personally suffered the required injury.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible illegal-exaction claim based on 2 C.F.R. § 200.320 because it alleged no facts showing that Returning Home was not the only source capable of providing the contemplated services, that other providers could provide them, or that other providers had been consulted and expressed interest.
2. The statute requires supporting documentation concerning the exclusivity of a single source to exist and support the procurement, but it does not require that the documentation be physically attached to the county court order.
3. The equal-protection claim was subject to dismissal because Moore did not allege intentional or purposeful discrimination and did not allege that she personally was or likely would be eligible for the County's substance-abuse services.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Washington County violated 2 C.F.R. § 200.320 by using a noncompetitive procurement method to award federal funds to Returning Home.
2. Whether Arkansas Code § 14-22-106(22)(B) requires supporting documentation concerning a single-source procurement to be attached to the county court order.
3. Whether Moore plausibly alleged an equal-protection violation based on the County's funding of a substance-abuse program serving male pretrial detainees.
4. Whether Moore had standing to assert the equal-protection claim as a taxpayer.

Disposition

dismissed