Opinion
Civil Action No. RDB-16-194
02-08-2016
MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK, Plaintiff, v STATE ATTORNEY MARILYN MOSBY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 14, 2016, Michael Lawrence Pack filed this Complaint against Marilyn Mosby, State's Attorney for the City of Baltimore. (ECF 1). As relief, Pack is seeking $200 million. Pack filed a supplement to the Complaint on February 2, 2016. Pack's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis will be granted for the limited purpose of preliminary review of the Complaint. The in forma pauperis statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to dismiss the cases of pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis which fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For reasons set forth herein, the Complaint will be DISMISSED.
The Clerk will be directed to amend the docket to reflect the correct spelling of Plaintiff's surname as Pack. Michael Pack is a frequent pro se litigant in this court. The vast majority of his complaints were dismissed after preliminary review for failure to state a cause of action or as frivolous. A partial listing of these dismissals includes: Pack v. U.S. Postal Service, JFM-15-589; Pack v. U.S. Postal Service, RDB-15-32; Pack v. U.S. Postal Service, ELH-13-3187; Pack v. Jones, RDB-131; Pack v. Jones, WMN-11-1985; Pack v. Officer Anjanette Jones, ELH-11-837 Pack v. Officer Anjanette Jones, RDB-11-657; Pack v. Officer Anjanette Jones, et al, WDQ-11-325; Pack v. MTA Officer Anjanette Jones, L-11-18; Pack v MTA Officer Anjanette Jones, WMN-11-522; Pack v. Public Safety & Correctional Services Department, et al, Civil Action No. CCB-09-2911; Pack v. O'Malley, Civil Action No. WDQ-09-2912; Pack v. State of Maryland, Civil Action No. L-09-2400; Pack v. Baltimore City Police Department, WDQ-09-2223; Pack v. State of Maryland, RDB-09-1018 (D. Md.), Pack v. Baltimore City Police, AMD-09-518, Pack v. Weidefield, JFM-09-208 (D. Md.); Pack v. Maryland Transit Administration, AMD-08-3097; Pack v. Comm'r Frederick Bealefield, CCB-08-2625; and Pack v. Commissioner Frederick Bealefield, WMN-08-3067.
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; andFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
Rule 8 requires that a party submit a "simple, concise and direct" pleading. Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 126 (D. Md. 1981). This requirement may be violated by a complaint that is "needlessly long, highly repetitious, or confused." S. Volkswagen, Inc. v. Centrix Fin., LLC, 357 F. Supp. 2d 837, 841 (D. Md. 2005). Allegations in a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). This handwritten seven-page Complaint, supplemented by an additional fourteen, seemingly unrelated pages, is rambling, repetitive, indecipherable, and lacks coherent structure.
This Court recognizes that Pack is a pro se litigant and accords his filings liberal construction, see e,g, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978), Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), but it is nearly impossible for even the most vigilant reader to determine what is being alleged. Simply put, the Complaint does not comply with Rule 8, and will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order follows. February 8, 2016
Date
/s/_________
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE