Johnson v. Nixon

Eighth Circuit

Johnson v. Nixon

367 F. App'x 715

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 2010

DocketNo. 08-2984

StatusPublished

This text of 367 F. App'x 715 (Johnson v. Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Nixon, 367 F. App'x 715 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Glenn Johnson, Jr., and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr., appeal the district court’s¹ dismissal of their lawsuit and denial of their motion for recusal. After careful de novo review, see Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir.2005), we conclude that dismissal was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (requirements to survive Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced); Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 672 (8th Cir.1995) (complaint fell short of meeting even liberal standard for notice pleading where it was entirely conclusory and gave no idea what acts individual defendants were accused of that could result in liability); see also Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir.2005) (court may affirm dismissal on any basis supported by record); Norwood, 409 F.3d at 903-04 (federal courts should abstain from hearing federal cases when there is ongoing state judicial proceeding which implicates important state interests, and when that proceeding affords adequate opportunity to raise federal questions presented). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion. See Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We deny appellee Larry Maddox’s motion [717]*717to strike appellants’ brief or dismiss the appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

Glenn Johnson, Jr., and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr., appeal the district court’s¹ dismissal of their lawsuit and denial of their motion for recusal. After careful de novo review, see Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir.2005), we conclude that dismissal was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (requirements to survive Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced); Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 672 (8th Cir.1995) (complaint fell short of meeting even liberal standard for notice pleading where it was entirely conclusory and gave no idea what acts individual defendants were accused of that could result in liability); see also Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir.2005) (court may affirm dismissal on any basis supported by record); Norwood, 409 F.3d at 903-04 (federal courts should abstain from hearing federal cases when there is ongoing state judicial proceeding which implicates important state interests, and when that proceeding affords adequate opportunity to raise federal questions presented). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion. See Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We deny appellee Larry Maddox’s motion [717]*717to strike appellants’ brief or dismiss the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 F. App'x 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-nixon-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack