FRCP 12(b)(6)-pro’se stopper

ROYDEN HOA USES 12B6 RULE TO DISMISS HO CLAIM-THE PROFIT OF INJUSTICE

FRCP 12(b)(6) “Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted”

For years, I’ve watched pro se plaintiff after pro se plaintiff have their complaints dismissed by federal courts based on a defendant’s pre-trial, Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Although the federal courts’ repeatedly grant of 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss, the meaning of the phrase “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted” has remained almost as obscure as that of a magical incantation (“abra cadabra!”). Everyone has heard the words but no one seems to understand what they really mean.                                                                                                           ‘¹

Over the years, I’ve speculated on several possible explanations for what “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted” might truly mean. What follows are several case excerpts plus more of my bracketed speculation. This speculation is somewhat “stream of consciousness” but nevertheless expresses my “theory de jure” as to what that mysterious phrase might really mean. I can’t say this current speculation is true, but it’s probably my best to date.

“The general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed ‘***unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief/ CONLEY VS. GIBSON (1957), 355 U.S. 41, 45, 46, 78 S.Ct. 99,102, 2LEd 2d 80; SEYMOUR VS. UNION NEWS COMPANY, 7 Cir., 1954, 217 F.2d 168; and see rule 54c, demand for judgment, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA: “***every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the