Plaintiffs argument presents “a tortured reading of the complaint.” 132 F.3d at 1368. Assuming that Plaintiff intended to rely on the First Amendment’s free speech clause as the basis for his theory that he was retaliated against for “opposing] the[ ] unlawful discriminatory practices by Defendants,” (Am.Compl.¶ 39), a theory which Plaintiff essentially renounces in his brief, his First Amendment retaliation claim is not in any better shape than it was in his original complaint. In the first instance, the First Amendment retaliation claim does not allege, even in conclusory terms, which provision of the First Amendment Plaintiff is invoking. Only the “First Amendment” is cited. This count arguably could be dismissed on this ground alone. See GJR Investments, Inc., 132 F.3d at 1367 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). There, however, are
holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial holding that complaint failed to state an equal protection claim even without the additional hurdle of the heightened pleading standard the words equal protection do not appear anywhere in the complaint