Epstein Secrets

oubt that the plaintiff can prove not set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can

lerk of the Court for the purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) 1(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS JANE DOE NO. 2, JEFFREY EPSTEIN (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF OUT OF STATE (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST

rules of civil procedure that have governed litigation in the federal courts for the past seventy years. The Court's forced retirement of Conley'. Gibson's "no set of facts" language does not change the fundamental command of Rule 8 as to what a valid complaint must look like. Indeed, the Court made

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARFtA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaint

/2009 EFTA00182798 Page 7 of 11 162 F.3d 832 162 F.3d 832 (Cite as: 162 F.3d 832) ate standard of review is clear error. See Linked States v. Gibson, 48 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir.1995); Balls, 28 F.3d at 1409. We agree that this is the appropriate stand- ard for reviewing a district court's finding

t 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY