Opinion
CASE NO. 8:08CV132.
June 24, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on March 31, 2008. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 6.) The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
Filing No. 1 Id. Id. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) 1915A 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Therefore, where a pro se plaintiff does not set forth enough factual allegations to "nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed" for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (overruling Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1967), and setting new standard for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). Regardless of whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the plaintiff's complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent , 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). However, a pro se plaintiff's allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. Rehab. , 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
The court has carefully reviewed the Complaint. As set forth above, it is difficult to decipher Plaintiff's allegations. Although Plaintiff appears to allege that UP failed to "rehire" him, he does not allege that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Buckley v. Barlow , 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). Further, Plaintiff states that he made "claims" to the NEOC and EEOC, but does not allege any claim of employment (or other) discrimination. As such, even with the most liberal construction, Plaintiff's Complaint does not include "sufficient facts" to state a claim. Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist. , 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2006). However, on the court's own motion, Plaintiff shall have 30 days in which to amend his Complaint in order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against these two Defendants. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, this matter will be dismissed without further notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, Plaintiff shall have until July 23, 2008 to amend his Complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2);
2. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Review case for amended complaint on July 23, 2008 and dismiss if none filed; and
3. Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all times while this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal without further notice.