Gonzales-Koeneke v. West

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s pro se second-amended complaint alleging violations of Title VII, as well as section 1981 and 1983, arising out of her termination as bus driver. Dist. Ct. identified certain deficiencies in plaintiff’s second-amended complaint, and plaintiff failed to indicate either in her post-trial motion or on appeal how any proposed third-amended complaint would cure said deficiencies. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s contention that she was entitled to file third-amended complaint because counsel who had assisted her in drafting original complaint was in process of “getting up to speed” on her case.