Case Name: Tina L. GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLDDSO, Attorney General, State Insurance Fund, Workers Compensation Board, CSEA Union, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-28
Citations: 136 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: Docket No. 04-5773
Parties: Tina L. GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLDDSO, Attorney General, State Insurance Fund, Workers Compensation Board, CSEA Union, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: MINER, CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and AMON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Tina L. GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLDDSO, Attorney General, State Insurance Fund, Workers Compensation Board, CSEA Union, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 04-5773.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 28, 2005.
Tina L. Greene, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiff-appellant, pro se.
Jennifer Grace Miller, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General of the State of New York (Andrea Oser, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-appellees.
PRESENT: MINER, CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and AMON, District Judge.
The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

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.