Complaints must state some specific claim or allegation based on facts. Courts won’t just take a person’s word for it that they’ve been wronged. Georr M. Birla was given several chances by the courts to amend his claim against the defendants, but never got it right. He appealed pro se from an order of the District Court dismissing his amended complaint.
Birla, an African American, filed a short two-page Title VII complaint against the New Jersey Board of Nursing, alleging that they refused to issue him a license to work as a Certified Homecare Health Aide because of “racial and retaliatory discrimination.” The District Court dismissed his complaint because he didn’t claim that the Nursing Board was his “employer” for purposes of relief under Title VII. The District Court’s dismissal was without prejudice, so Birla was allowed to amend his complaint to try a second time to assert a federal claim, including any claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Birla’s second attempt was an amended complaint and a notice of appeal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a per curium decision, dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the District Court hadn’t yet entered a final judgment.