Reported / Citable
Background
Arlington police officers responded in June 2024 to a report of an aggressive dog in the back of a pickup truck at an amusement park. They charged Tramell Marquis Lowdermilk with failing to display a current rabies tag, failing to provide adequate food and water to an animal, and having an animal at large. The City of Arlington dropped the charges in December 2025.
Lowdermilk, proceeding pro se, alleged that he has anxiety and depressive disorders and uses his registered service dog, “Baby Bottlez,” to perform tasks associated with his disabilities. He claimed the citations violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and disrupted employment opportunities because the Federal Protective Service discontinued a fitness-for-duty application while the charges were pending. The City moved to dismiss his second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court’s Holding
U.S. Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. recommended that Chief Judge Reed O’Connor grant the City’s motion and dismiss the second amended complaint. The magistrate judge concluded that Lowdermilk had not pleaded facts showing that the City excluded him from a public service, denied him a public benefit, otherwise discriminated against him, or failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. The animal-welfare and rabies-tag citations, standing alone, did not establish a Title II violation.
The magistrate judge also concluded that Lowdermilk had not plausibly alleged that any exclusion, denial, or discrimination occurred because of his disability. Because he had already filed three versions of his complaint and earlier dismissal motions had identified similar deficiencies, the magistrate judge determined that he had pleaded his best case and recommended dismissal without leave to amend as further amendment would be futile.
Key Takeaways
- A Title II plaintiff must plead facts connecting the challenged municipal conduct to exclusion from a public service or benefit, discrimination, or a failure to provide a reasonable modification.
- Alleging both a disability and adverse government action does not, without supporting facts, establish that the action occurred because of the disability.
- Repeated failure to cure identified pleading defects may support dismissal without further leave to amend when another amendment would be futile.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that service-animal status does not automatically convert animal-control enforcement into disability discrimination. A plaintiff must plausibly identify the public service or benefit at issue and explain how the public entity’s conduct was connected to the disability.
The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation rather than a final dismissal order. The parties may file specific written objections within 14 days, and the assigned district judge will decide whether to accept, reject, or modify the recommendation.