Background
Jeramy Michael Stevens, proceeding pro se, appealed from a district court judgment dismissing his Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three action alleging various claims in connection with state court proceedings. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a plausible claim and denied leave to amend.
The court’s reasoning
The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo under the standard set forth in Ashcroft versus Iqbal. The court concluded that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The panel further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to amend because any amendment would have been futile.
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the high bar for pro se plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss under the plausibility standard. It confirms that leave to amend may be denied when the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint and further changes would not cure the deficiencies.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download