Opinion
Case No.: 3:15-CV-1726-VEH
04-15-2016
DONALD P. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Donald P. Williams's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 8). In this court's order of March 16, 2016, the court declined to reconsider its December 8, 2015, dismissal order. In the March 16 order, however, the court indicated that it would reconsider its December 8 dismissal if Williams submitted an amended complaint that complied with the court's October 16, 2015 order for repleader. Finding that the Amended Complaint does not conform to the requirements of the October 16 order, the court still declines to reconsider its order of dismissal.
The court ordered Williams as follows in the October 16 order:
The amended complaint must comply with Rule 8. Thus, it shall include "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1). It shall also include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Williams must also include a demand for relief sought in his amended complaint. FED R. CIV. P. 8(a)(3). A complaint does not "suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations and citations omitted).(Doc. 2 at 2-3).
The amended complaint shall comply with Rule 10. It must "have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file number, and [indicate that it is a complaint]. The title of the complaint must name all the parties." FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) (alteration and emphasis added). Each legal claim against each defendant must be specifically identified in separate numbered paragraphs. FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b). Any particular count must only describe one claim against one defendant, and each count must include the pertinent supporting facts in separately numbered paragraphs. See id.
The Amended complaint lacks a demand for relief as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(3), and the factual allegations are largely unintelligible. Additionally, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 10; it does not provide individualized counts against individualized defendants. Finally, the complaint is not divided into separately numbered paragraphs. In light of these deficiencies, the complaint does not comply with the October 16 order.
The dismissal will not be reconsidered, and this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of April, 2016.
/s/_________
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge