Summary
holding district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 after district court afforded plaintiff with multiple opportunities to cure the deficiencies in the complaint
Summary of this case from Jemmott v. NYC Trans. Auth.Opinion
No. 07-2627-cv.
November 16, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Patterson, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
Thyaisha Dyson, pro se, Bronx, NY, for Appellant.
Roni E. Glaser, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, PIERRE N. LEVAL and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Thyaisha Dyson, pro se, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing, sua sponte, her Title VII complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." In this regard, the complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim will have "facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dyson's third amended complaint with prejudice. The record makes clear that, even in the face of explicit instructions from the court that she identify what actions by the Appellees evidenced discrimination on account of her race or gender, Dyson failed to allege any cognizable claim to demonstrate that she was entitled to relief under Title VII. Moreover, the district court afforded Dyson three opportunities to file an amended complaint so as to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), and, despite these, she did not plead any facts sufficient to show that she was plausibly entitled to any relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.