Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitJun 9, 2008
282 Fed. Appx. 361 (6th Cir. 2008)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Giduck v. Niblett

    …Based upon the amended complaint's failure to specify which defendant did what, we agree that the nine claims…

  • Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Mix

    …No. 08–300.2008-10-20Sandi D. JACKSON, as Next Friend and Parent of Keely A. Jackson, petitioner, v. Frank…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 07-6010.

June 9, 2008.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HOOD, District Judge.

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Sandi Jackson alleges that defendants, individually and in concert with each other, violated her daughter Keely's constitutional rights. None of the factual allegations contained in her complaint, however, are linked with any specific defendant, and the complaint fails to address how defendants' actions were objectively unreasonable. Citing these failures, the district court gave Jackson twenty-one days to amend her complaint under Achterhof v. Selvaggio, 886 F.2d 826, 831 (6th Cir. 1989) (if a plaintiff fails to allege sufficient factual allegations necessary to sustain his § 1983 action, a court must accord the plaintiff an additional opportunity to come forward with such allegations). Instead of curing the problem, Jackson's second complaint simply re-alleges that " all of the defendants participated in violating her substantive due process rights by committing several unconstitutional acts." This is not specific enough to sustain her claim, and the defendants are thus entitled to a dismissal of the complaint under FED. R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). We thus AFFIRM the holding of the district court.