MARIE v. GAYLORD PAPER MANUFACTURER, (E.D.La. 2004)

CARL BARBIER, District Judge

Before the Court is Plaintiff's' Motion to Reinstate Complaint. This suit is brought pursuant to a complaint by pro se plaintiffs. On January 29, 2004, this Court dismissed the plaintiffs7 first complaint without prejudice because this Court held that the factual allegations made in the complaint were vague, rambling and difficult to understand. This Court now construes Plaintiff's' Motion to Reinstate Complaint as a Motion to Amend Plaintiff's' First Complaint.

Again, the amended complaint contains nothing but conclusory and unintelligible allegations and, therefore, violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Again, the amended complaint contains no "short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends" as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1).

Although a pro se litigant's pleadings must be read more liberally than those filed by an attorney, nevertheless, the complaint must allege sufficient facts from which the court can determine the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and from which the defendants can fairly appreciate the claim made against them. See Jackson v. Arthur Anderson, No. 3:96-CV-2206-D, 1997 WL 74709, at *1 (N.D. Tex, Feb. 11, 1997) and cases cited therein; Weaver v. City of Topeka, No. 94-4224-SAC, 1995 WL 783628, at *6 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 1995) and cases cited therein. Some facts must be alleged that convince the court that the plaintiffs have at least a colorable claim. Conclusory allegations will not suffice. Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court #3, 837 F.2d 677, 678 (5th Cir. 1988). Indulging plaintiffs' complaint with great leeway, the Court finds it does not meet these requirements.

In Addition, this Court notes that the plaintiffs filed a Notice cf Appeal (Rec. Doc. 38) on February 4, 2004. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's' Motion to Reinstate Complaint is DENIED.