◆ SpookStack

>) PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED Although it is certainly not clear as to why the saiit: | defendants are being sued, it is submitted the comp lait fails to state a claim against the defendants indivitinaliny. The Supreme Court has held that. a cause of action exists: against federal officials individually for violations «¥ au person's constitutional rights While: acting in an offiedz3 capacity. Biven Vv. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. BLE (1971). It is fundamental, however, that for a federal official to be Properly sued individually for actions taken by him in an official capacity, the complaint must wiega x specific constitutional deprivation of plaintiff's Tigtrts bry defendant. Failure to allege a Specific constituticnal, violation deprives the court of individual subject matter jurisdiction and fails to state a claim as to any individu] liability of defendants for actions taken in their OfLiciek: Capacity. In such a case the complaint must be dismisszz, See Carlson v. Green, 446. U.S. 14, 18 (1980); Baker v. MeCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979): Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239 (1979). The Supreme Court has, moreover, consistently heid tnée as a threshold requirement a complaint alleging constitutional violations must contain specific allegations deinonstrating the factual involvement of individual defendants. Baker vy. McCollan, 443 U.S. at 140; Butz wv. - er : ° a Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507-08 (1978): Paul v. Davis, 424 _ nt, U-S. 693, 696-97 (1976). Where 4 complaint fails ‘to meet Bie -- A