Opinion

AFZAL v. NEW JERSEY BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Court
District Court, D. New Jersey
Filed
Apr 27, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.6%

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-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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 23-02237 (SDW)(JSA)

SHUJA,

Plaintiffs,

OPINION

v.

April 27, 2023

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 Plaintiffs Fiaz

Afzal, M.D. and Dr. Shahida Shuja (“Plaintiffs”), and the Court having sua sponte 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 a district court may allow a plaintiff to commence a civil action without

paying the filing fee—that is, in forma pauperis—so long as the plaintiff submits an affidavit

demonstrating he is “unable to pay such fees,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); 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 Plaintiff Afzal submitted a similar claim in February of 2018, which this

Court dismissed without prejudice sua sponte on February 21, 2018 for failure to state a claim and

afforded Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend within thirty days. Afzal v. N.J. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs,

et al., No. 2:18-02224 (D.N.J. Feb. 21 2018). Plaintiff Afzal did not amend within the allotted

time. Id. Plaintiffs submitted a similar claim in March of 2022, which this Court dismissed without

prejudice sua sponte on March 21, 2022 for failure to state a claim and afforded Plaintiffs an

opportunity to amend. See Afzal and Shuja v. N.J. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, No. 22-01283, 2022 WL

939387, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2022), aff’d, 2022 WL 4533826 (3d. Cir. Sept. 28, 2022). Plaintiffs

submitted an Amended Complaint, which this Court dismissed with prejudice sua sponte on March

29, 2022 for failure to state a claim. Id. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and the Third Circuit

affirmed. Afzal and Shuja v. N.J. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, No. 22-1609, 2022 WL 4533826 (3d. Cir.

Sept. 28, 2022) (concluding that “the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the

amended complaint under Rule 8(a)(2)” after, “given multiple opportunities to [amend], plaintiffs

failed to plead adequate factual content to support a reasonable inference that defendants were

liable and did not present cognizable legal claims to which defendants could respond on the merits”

(citing Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 81 n.14, 91 (3d Cir. 2019))); and

WHEREAS Plaintiffs now bring a similar Complaint with substantially identical,

incoherent allegations without cogent legal bases and/or factual support, but additionally assert

that because Plaintiff Afzal’s medical licensure matter received a final disposition from the State,

that the disposition resurrects the inadequately pleaded claims that were previously dismissed by

this Court with prejudice, and the dismissal affirmed by the Third Circuit. (See D.E. 1.); and

2

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 adhere to the relevant pleading standards and

seeks to litigate claims that have already been dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissal upheld

after appeal. 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-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”). The addition of the final disposition from the State does

not alter this Court’s previous analysis of Plaintiffs’ claims. Of note, Plaintiffs are cautioned that

this Court “will not tolerate frivolous litigation that wastes judicial resources” and, consequently,

“any future abuse of legal process might trigger sanctions, including an imposition of limitations

on Plaintiffs’ ability to initiate such legal actions in the future.” Karupiayan v. Infosys, BPM, No.

21-20796, 2023 WL 1452340, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 27, 2023); therefore

Plaintiffs’ Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

3

Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. An appropriate order

follows.

__/s/ Susan D. Wigenton____

United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk

cc: Parties

Jessica S. Allen, U.S.M.J.

4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.