We review de novo a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Western Sec. Bank v. Eide Bailly LLP, 2010 MT 291, ¶ 18, 359 Mont. 34, 249 P.3d 35 (citation omitted).
A district court's determination that a complaint has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted is a conclusion of law which we review for correctness. Sinclair v. Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Ry., 2008 MT 424, ¶ 25, 347 Mont. 395, 200 P.3d 46 (citation omitted).
We construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs when reviewing an order dismissing a complaint under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A court should not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Jones v. Mont. Univ. Sys., 2007 MT 82, ¶ 15, 337 Mont. 1, 155 P.3d 1247 (citations omitted).
A district court may dismiss a petition for postconviction relief as a matter of law for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 46-21-201(1)(a), MCA, and we review a court's conclusions of law for correctness. Herman v. State, 2006 MT 7, ¶ 13, 330 Mont. 267, 127 P.3d 422.