From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pantazes v. Pantazes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Aug 28, 2015
Case No. 6:15-cv-1039-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 6:15-cv-1039-Orl-37TBS

08-28-2015

STEVE PANTAZES, Plaintiff, v. THECKLA LITSA PANTAZES; NICHOLAS J PANTAZES; MARYLAND BAIL BONDSMEN; STATE OF MARYLAND USA; and MD. STATE ACTORS, Defendant.


ORDER

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. Upon review of the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court finds that it is due to be stricken for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Steve Pantazes, proceeding pro se, brings an action against several named Defendants, seeking monetary damages. (Id.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction rests, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to provide Defendants with fair notice of Plaintiff's claims, which will enable them to adequately respond and prepare for trial. Alford v. Consol. Gov't of Columbus, Ga., 438 F. App'x 837, 838 (11th Cir.2011)

Even a cursory review of the Complaint reveals that it does not comply with the miminum pleading requirements. The Complaint sets forth neither a short and plain statement of this court's jurisdiction, nor a short and plain statement showing Plaintiff's entitlement to relief. Indeed, Plaintiff's pleading is merely a duplication of the decision from Jackson v. Pantazes, 810 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1987). (See id., pp. 2-6.)

The Court also notes that the Complaint fails to comply with the Court's July 14, 2015 Order because it neither includes Plaintiff's name and signature, nor an adequate certificate of service. (See Doc. 4, p. 2 (requiring that all documents filed with the Court include the party's name and signature, and a certificate of service).)

The Court finds that Plaintiff's purported Complaint is so far from compliance with the Rules that it cannot serve as a pleading in this action, and is therefore due to be stricken pursuant to Rule 12(f)(1). While it is doubtful that Plaintiff will be able to file a complaint that complies the Court's Orders and the Rules, the Court will afford Plaintiff an additional opportunity to file a pleading in this action. However, before doing so, Plaintiff should review Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for sanctions against attorneys and unrepresented parties who present a "pleading, written motion, or other paper" to the Court without assuring, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that (1) the document is not submitted for any improper purpose; (2) that the claims or defenses presented in it are warranted by existing law; and (3) that there exists reasonable factual support for the allegations or assertions made.

Plaintiff should also review Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d), and 10, and Local Rules 1.05 and 1.06. These rules generally require that a complaint be comprised of "numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances," and include: (1) a "short and plain" statements of his claim and the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; (2) a "demand for the relief" sought by plaintiff; and (3) "simple, concise, and direct" allegations. Additional information and resources are available on the Court's website in a section entitled, "Proceeding Without a Lawyer." That website is available at: http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.

2. On or before September 11, 2015, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that fully complies with this Order. If Plaintiffs again fails to file a document in conformance with the Court's Orders and Rules, this action will be closed without further notice.

3. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will also result in the closure of this case without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 28th, 2015.

/s/_________

ROY B. DALTON JR.

United States District Judge
Copies: Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Pantazes v. Pantazes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Aug 28, 2015
Case No. 6:15-cv-1039-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Pantazes v. Pantazes

Case Details

Full title:STEVE PANTAZES, Plaintiff, v. THECKLA LITSA PANTAZES; NICHOLAS J PANTAZES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Date published: Aug 28, 2015

Citations

Case No. 6:15-cv-1039-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2015)