Attaie v. Telex Communications
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order and the courts March 9, 2011, Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On March 9, 2011, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted as to all claims asserted. (Filing No. 8.) In
particular, the court determined that:
Plaintiff does not provide factual allegations to show that the negative
employment references actually occurred. Plaintiff does not specify the
content of the alleged negative references, nor does he state that Telex
disseminated false information. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no
factual allegations to suggest a “causal link” between the negative employment
references and Plaintiff’s filing of administrative charges against Telex.
Second, Plaintiff alleges that Telex retaliated against him by sending people
to“threaten” and “spy” on him. Plaintiff, however, does not provide factual
allegations to suggest a “causal link” between these alleged acts of harassment
and Plaintiff’s filing of administrative charges against Telex. In short,
Plaintiff’s allegations do not allow the court to reasonably infer that Telex is
liable for the misconduct alleged.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 3.) In light of these pleading deficiencies, the court granted Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend.
In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 11, 2011. (Filing No. 9.)
The allegations of the Amended Complaint are sparse and confusing. As best as the court
can tell, Plaintiff again alleges generally that he was harassed, that Defendant provided bad
references, and that he had carpal tunnel surgery which resulted in fees. (Id.) Plaintiff also
complains about an individual named “Mohammed” who has some relationship with
Plaintiff’s ex-wife. (Id.) After careful review of the Amended Complaint, the court finds
that, even after amendment, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (“A 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.”); Martin v. Sargent, 780
F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that, 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). For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the court’s March 9, 2011,
Memorandum and Order, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and
Order and the court’s March 9, 2011, Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 20 th day of June, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services
or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third
parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect
the opinion of the court.
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?