From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Teddy-Lawrence v. State of Michigan Inc.

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 27, 2010
Civil Case No. 10-1786 (RJL) (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 10-1786 (RJL).

October 27, 2010


MEMORANDUM ORDER


Plaintiff, who identifies himself as "Teddy-Lawrence. From the family of [Boniecki]," filed a pro se civil complaint on October 21, 2010, against the State of Michigan, the County of Macomb, and the City of Roseville — all of which he refers to as incorporated entities — and a number of individual defendants. For the following reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks to obtain. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, however, the Court cannot discern which claims are made against the various defendants and on what basis. Plaintiff alleges that he is "a living soul" that was the victim of unspecified fraud, constitutional violations, and "Plunder." He quotes unrelated portions of the U.S. Code and references congressional acts against communist takeovers. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). It simply does not contain a short and plain statement of any claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Accordingly, it is, this 26th day of October, 2010, hereby

ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 8(a); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk, in addition to electronic notice, shall mail a paper copy of this Order to plaintiff at his address of record.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Teddy-Lawrence v. State of Michigan Inc.

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Oct 27, 2010
Civil Case No. 10-1786 (RJL) (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2010)
Case details for

Teddy-Lawrence v. State of Michigan Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Teddy-Lawrence, Plaintiff, v. State of Michigan Inc. et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Oct 27, 2010

Citations

Civil Case No. 10-1786 (RJL) (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2010)