Greene v. FLDDSO

Second Circuit

Greene v. FLDDSO

136 F. App'x 441

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-5773

StatusPublished

This text of 136 F. App'x 441 (Greene v. FLDDSO) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greene v. FLDDSO, 136 F. App'x 441 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Tina L. Greene (“plaintiff’ or “Greene”) appeals the dismissal, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of her complaint alleging that defendants-appellees FLDDSO, the Attorney General of New York, the Workers Compensation Board, and the State Insurance Fund (collectively, “defendants”) engaged in various forms of discrimination. For the purposes of this summary order, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented in this appeal.

Though a pro se complaint should be construed liberally, it may be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 if the complaint is “so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance ... is well disguised.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988). The language in Salahuddin aptly describes the complaint before us. Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion when, after providing repeated warnings and several opportunities for amendment, it dismissed plaintiffs complaint. Cf. Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir.2000).

We have considered all of Greene’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Tina L. Greene (“plaintiff’ or “Greene”) appeals the dismissal, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of her complaint alleging that defendants-appellees FLDDSO, the Attorney General of New York, the Workers Compensation Board, and the State Insurance Fund (collectively, “defendants”) engaged in various forms of discrimination. For the purposes of this summary order, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented in this appeal.

Though a pro se complaint should be construed liberally, it may be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 if the complaint is “so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance ... is well disguised.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988). The language in Salahuddin aptly describes the complaint before us. Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion when, after providing repeated warnings and several opportunities for amendment, it dismissed plaintiffs complaint. Cf. Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir.2000).

We have considered all of Greene’s arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 F. App'x 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-flddso-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack