Free Notice - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv-01808-JCH Document 42 Filed 0/25/2004
/%’%?’ ,
ii. Tl * R
UNITED STATES DISTRICT C URT __ i
oisrraicr OF cowiximotiiic 73 R if ll
RICHARD ROGUE 1 lll] .ili1_“i §`ii_¥Y*`i
Plaintiff : CIVIL AG lON·‘N‘O`.
v. : 3-02-cv-18 8 (JCH)
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG, ET AL {
Defendants : OCTOBE 25, 2004 l
NOTICE TO PR0 SE LITIGA T i
‘ · Defendants, Armstrong, Bailey, Gethers, Hanna, K ight, Rodriguez, Sanders
and the State of Connecticut, have filed a Motion to Disrni s [Dkt. No. 38] this action for '
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, p rsuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of (
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b)(6) mot on to dismiss may only be
granted if "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can pr ve no set of facts in support
of his claim which would entitle him to re|ief." Conl v. Gi son, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 I
(1957); Todd v. Exxon Corp., 275 F.3d 191, 197-98 (2d Ci . 2001). ln considering such l
a motion, the court must accept the factual allegations alle ed inthe complaint as true
and all inferences must be drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor. S e henson v. Dow Chemical J
g, 273 F.3d 249, 256 (2d Cir. 2001). A Rule 12(b)(6) m tion to dismiss cannot be
granted simply because recovery appears remote or unlik ly on the face of a complaint.
Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir. 1996). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff |
will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the
claims." Q, (quotation omitted). "[B]aId assertions and co clusions of law will not ;
suffice." Leeds v. l\/leltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996). i

- 1 -
I
I
· I
a . . l T L T Q i g i i·s·----

Case 3:02-cv-01808-JCH Document 42 Filed O/25/2004 Page 2 of 2 Q
l
The court hereby gives notice to the gm; Eg plaintiff that he should file a
memorandum in opposition to the defendants motion to d smiss explaining to the court l
why his complaint states a legal claim upon which relief c uid be granted. The
plaintiffs memorandum must be tiled by NOVEMBER 29, 004. Ifthe plaintiff does not
file such a memorandum, the defendants motion will Iikel be granted if it appears, =
absent objection, to be weII—grounded, and the claims the efendants seek to have I
` dismissed will likely be dismissed. ge generally luotolo . IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir.
1994) (court has obligation to make certain that pg sg litig nts are aware of the local
rules and understand the consequences ofthe failure to c mply with such rules).
SO ORDERED.
l Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 25th day of O tober, 2004.
/'\ ,. x

( Owner c. Hari if M ` I
United States District Ju ge
l
- 2 - l I
l
l
l