Bell v. Labor Bureau of Paramount Picture, No. 3:2013cv01951 - Document 12 (D. Or. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Bell's Amended Complaint fails state a basis for jurisdiction, to comply with FRCP 8(a), and to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Given that this court has already given Bell an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint and he has failed to do so, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed on 1/15/2014 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION THOMAS M. BELL, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:13-cv-1951-ST v. OPINION AND ORDER LA VOR BURTON and PARAMOUNT PICTURE, Defendants. On November 4, 2013 , plaintiff, Thomas M. Bell ("Bell"), appearing prose, filed a handwritten Complaint which is nearly illegible but refers to lost or damaged dental crowns and the need for replacement or a total implant. On December 3, 2013 , this court issued an Order (docket #9) dismissing Bell' s Complaint for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, failure to comply with FRCP 8(a), and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Due to Bell's prose status, the Order advised him of the Complaint' s deficiencies and granted him leave to file an amended complaint. On December 13, 2013 , Bell filedan Amended Complaint (docket #11) which is handwritten on a piece of lined notebook paper and includes even less information than the original Complaint. It entirely fails to legibly state a factual or legal allegation, but states only 1 - OPINION AND ORDER that "Person or Employee was Negligent for Mishap and Mischief." Such an allegation, if construed correctly, is no "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation," which fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Trambly, 550 US 554, 555 (2007). The Amended Complaint fails to contain any the information ordered by the Court, namely: (1) the specific statute or constitutional provision that defendants have allegedly violated; (2) the specific conduct by each defendant that is allegedly unconstitutional or otherwise in violation of his rights; and (3) the dates on which the conduct allegedly took place. Thus, Bell' s Amended Complaint fails state a basis for jurisdiction, to comply with FRCP 8(a), and to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Given that this court has already given Bell an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint and he has failed to do so, this case is dismissed without prejudice. DATED this ISday of January, 2014. Malcolm F. Marsh United States District Judge 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
