Opinion ID: 552820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Plead with Sufficient Specificity

Text: 46 The district court held as a further ground for dismissal of Sosa's First Amended Complaint that he had failed to plead with the requisite particularity that each and every defendant has unlawfully discriminated against him. Sosa, 714 F.Supp. at 1107. We reject the district court's holding on the specificity of Sosa's pleading as both unprecedented in our circuit's cases and as unjustified in this instance. 47 To justify the dismissal of Sosa's complaint, the district court relied on cases where civil rights claimants alleged broad, vague, or conclusory claims. See, e.g., Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir.1976) (Nowhere in his complaint does the plaintiff identify the civil right allegedly invaded ...). Such cases are inapplicable here, as review of Sosa's First Amended Complaint shows. Instead, Sosa's First Amended Complaint fully satisfies our only requirement, to provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. 48 Our recitation of facts in this opinion, drawn from Sosa's First Amended Complaint, shows that Sosa pleaded specific allegations against specific defendants. Sosa identified in his First Amended Complaint the role each District administrator played in unlawfully denying him promotion to Chair. Sosa also identified the role of Chancellor Stewart and the District's trustees in censuring Sosa for unprofessional conduct, an allegation properly construed as unlawful retaliation discrimination. The district court therefore erred in dismissing Sosa's First Amended Complaint for lack of specificity.