BOWMAN v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

Filing 9

ENTRY and ORDER dismissing action. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/30/2012 (copy sent to Eric Bowman via first class mail)(CBU)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ERIC BOWMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:12-cv-277-JMS-DML Entry and Order Dismissing Action I. AA complaint must always . . . allege >enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=A Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520 F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). AA claim has 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Eric Bowman’s complaint was dismissed on May 30, 2012, because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and violated the “short and plain statement” requirement of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bowman was given a period of time in which to file an amended complaint and given guidelines to do so adequately. An amended complaint was filed, but lacks the facial plausibility required by Rule 8(a)(2). II. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. 07/30/2012 Date: __________________ _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Distribution: ERIC R. BOWMAN 1486 Stanford Drive Avon, IN 46123

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?