◆ SpookStack

‘ * : : ~ agsbee pesmi ao feed 4 « iad e . @ ° . cr a ARGUMENT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DIS- MISSED AS TO DEFENDANT MORGENTHAU FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. ye aaa) a A. Plaintiff's complaint is conclusory and without sufficient fac- 4 tual allegations. 3 ‘ . In determining a motionto dismiss a complaint under & Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), the complaint should be liberally con- strued in favor of the plaintiff, especially where the plaintiff pro- ceeds pro se. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519; 520-21 (1972); Cun- * ate cn cae ningham v. Ward, 546 F. 2d 481, 482 (2nd Cir. 1976); Frankos v. rs one Tet ae wz ee LaVallee, 535 F. 2d 1346, 1347 (2nd Cir. 1976). While a pro se 77 plaintiff is entitled to be held to less stringent standards in his pleading than are requiredof plaintiffs who are represented by coun- coke sel, a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 must never- ; Ape _ theless contain more than merely conclusory allegations. Frankos no ae : Rhea v. LaVallee, 535 F.2d 1346, 1349 (2nd Cir. 1976); Pavell v. Jarvis, 460 F. 2d 551, 553 (2nd Cir. 1972); Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F. 2d 14, a oe ms eS Ta rom : al ‘16 (8rd Cir. 1971); Guedry v. Ford, 431 Ff. 2d 660, 664 (5th Cir. 1970); Jones v. Ault, 67 FRD 124, 127 (S.D. Ga. 1974), aff'd 516 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1975). If such minimal standards for complaints were not upheld a disgruntled person could force any prosecutor or _ other public official into a major trial on the basis of bald, un- substantiated conclusions. See Powell v. Workmen's Compensation Board, 327 F. 2d 131, 137 (2nd Cir. 1964). Thus, pro se complaints which have merely alleged a conspiracy by public officials against