explaining that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”
- stating that although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- 2 harmed-me accusation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FIAZ AFZAL, M.D. and DR. SHAHIDA
Civil Action No. 22-01283 (SDW)(CLW)
SHUJA,
Plaintiffs,
OPINION
v.
March 21, 2022
NEW JERSEY BOARD OF MEDICAL
EXAMINERS, et al.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon the filing of a Complaint and an
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs by pro se Plaintiff Fiaz
Afzal, M.D. and Dr. Shahida Shuja (“Plaintiffs”), and the Court having reviewed the Complaint
for sufficiency pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and (3) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129
S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); and
WHEREAS applications to proceed in forma pauperis are available to plaintiffs or
petitioners in order to be excused from paying certain fees for district court proceedings, including
those required to commence a civil action; and
WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs,
indicates: 1) that their only sources of income are $1500.00 per month in public assistance and
$650.00 per month in combined self-employment income; and 2) that their only asset is a twenty-
year-old used vehicle; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff Afzal submitted a similar claim in February of 2018, which this
Court dismissed sua sponte on February 21, 2018 because Plaintiff Afzal “failed to plead what, if
any, action ha[d] been taken by the N[ew] J[ersey] Board of Medical Examiners [(the “Board”)]
against him or any claim for relief against the [Board]”; and
WHEREAS the Court afforded Plaintiff Afzal thirty days leave to file an amended
complaint, yet he made no such filing within that timeframe; and
WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ current Complaint is difficult to comprehend but appears to allege
that Defendants have taken or are going to take some form of adverse licensure and employment
action against Plaintiff Afzal based on his criminal convictions for various counts of Medicaid
fraud. The Complaint also appears to allege that Defendants have committed a racist act and have
persecuted Defendant Afzal for his religion. The complaint does not, however, indicate specific
and cognizable legal bases for the allegations, and instead presents conclusory statements,
incoherent allegations, and indecipherable and incomplete exhibits; and
WHEREAS pro se complaints, although “[held] to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), must still “‘state a
plausible claim for relief.’” Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 566 F. App’x. 138, 141 (3d Cir.
2014) (quoting Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)); Martin v. U.S. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., No. 17-3129, 2017 WL 3783702, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017); and
WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to provide a clear account of the factual basis for
their claims. Therefore, the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are insufficient to support a claim
entitling Plaintiffs to relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (providing that an adequate complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”);
see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (stating that although Rule 8 does not require
detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
2
harmed-me accusation”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (explaining that to
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level”); therefore
Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs’
Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs shall
have thirty (30) days to file an amended Complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint
may result in the dismissal of this matter with prejudice. An appropriate order follows.
__/s/ Susan D. Wigenton____
United States District Judge
Orig: Clerk
cc: Parties
Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.
3