From Rhett R. Smith v. Iowa Republican Party, an unpublished Fifth Circuit opinion from last week:
Smith … filed an Amended Complaint containing only three paragraphs of allegations. In those paragraphs, he complained that his right to be a candidate was violated by the defendants and that the defendants acted “under color of law.” He asserted vague constitutional rights. Further, he alleged his “First Amendment right to protection from Zionism and/or Christian-Zionists” under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. “Plaintiff further asserts an implied principle of ‘fairness in communication’ in that the Defendants … have acquiesced to the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) and have allowed only Zionistic campaigns within the (two
major political party) campaign coverage.”Smith has wholly failed to allege claims stating a case for relief against any party. Despite clear and specific directives from the Magistrate Judge, he has filed a conclusory pleading without any of the information necessary to state a claim. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the Amended Complaint….
Well, yeah, that would be what they’d say, right?