◆ SpookStack

a PR 157-8299 S&S. FPRCP 12{B) &. FPilaintiffs failed to atate - claim upon which relief can be clalmed. The following are tha court's reasorm for diamiasal of the sult: 1. Fetitionsra complaint fails to set a claim upon which relief can be granted, 2. Haines va. Kemer, Ol U.S. 519, 5/20-21 (1972), such grants will be dismissed if it appears that plaintiff would be entitled te no relief under any set of facta which could be provided in support of hie claim. koh U.8. 1 5/22 Seo also Gray va. Creamer, 465 F. 2D179 (Third Circuit 1972}, 2A Moore, Federal Practice Section 12.08 at 2271-7 (Second Edition 1968). See generally U.S. Bx Rel. Mayo va. Saten and his Staff Sh F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pennsylvania 1971). 3. Flaintiffs! complaint does not allege that respondents have violated their first amendment, Right of Religious Liberty. It averse only that respondents have in some Way kept mambers of the black race in ignorance of thair true religious and cultural heritage. Such an allegation does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ; ys Fisgintiffs! complaint is replete with vague conciveaionary statements. Indeed, reference to the "religious ereed and principles of their forsfathers," and to their national flag, are not allegations at all, but proclamations of religious identity. Moreover, thers ia no nexus between the allegations of the complainant and named respondents or between the relief sought and the slleged constitutional deprivationg, Furthermore, we note that a command to the.. aa Government to Tinanclally support plaintiffs! religiaus organization would violate the first amendment. “UO m?