Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Larry Hodge v. the Invisible Empire

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


December 12, 2012

LARRY HODGE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE INVISIBLE EMPIRE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert L. Wilkins United States District Judge

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS

MEMORANDUM OPINION*fn1

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiff's pro se civil complaint. This Court issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiff Larry Hodge because it appeared that his complaint failed to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 4). On December 3, 2012 Mr. Hodge filed an amended complaint that is even more vague and conclusory than his first. (Dkt. No. 7). Accordingly, this Court will dismiss the case.

The Court acknowledges that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While certain statutes are cited on the face of Plaintiff's complaint, it is void of any factual detail and borders on the incoherent. Because the complaint does not establish the nature or basis of Plaintiff's claims, it fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "The dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is unintelligible is unexceptionable." See, e.g., Robinson-Reeder v. Kearns, 818 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations omitted). Mr. Hodge's pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9) are DENIED.

A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.