MOORMAN v. ORLANDO FLORIDA, POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding dismissal of the plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 9, 2012. (lcbah1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLINTON MOORMAN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 12-501 (BAH)
Judge Beryl A. Howell
v.
ORLANDO FLORIDA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 29, 2012, plaintiff Clinton Moorman filed a pro se Complaint, asserting in
sixty-five handwritten pages numerous allegations and interspersed claims against at least eleven
defendants. Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court will sua sponte dismiss
the Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those that are applied to
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se
litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bey v. Cube Smart, No.
12-cv-212, 2012 WL 447680, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2012) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp.
237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987)). In essence, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
that a complaint contain: (1) a short and plain statement regarding the grounds upon which the
court’s jurisdiction depends, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief sought. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). The
purpose of the Rule 8 requirements is to ensure that the complaint provides the defendants with fair
notice of the asserted claims so that the defendants may formulate a responsive answer, prepare an
1
adequate defense, and to determine whether claim preclusion applies. Brown v. Califano, 75
F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Rule 8 highlights “the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by
the federal pleading rules” and a clear and succinct complaint is therefore expressly mandated.
Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
In this case, the plaintiff’s Compliant spans sixty-five handwritten pages, the last of which
appears to be unfinished and indicates that the document is incomplete. The portion of the
document that is presented to the Court is largely illegible and lacks coherence and structure. The
plaintiff appears to assert claims against at least eleven defendants, including five police and
sheriff departments in Florida, Ohio, and California; three mental health centers in Florida and
California; a hospital in Ohio; an auto repair company in Florida; and an investment company
allegedly based in New Jersey. A small portion of the Complaint includes the charge that
“Ciba-Geigy Corporation and their Bonding Co. and Police and others . . . conspired in a
premeditated warrantless ongoing investigation conspiracy to profile, discriminate and defraud
[the plaintiff of his] civil rights, invade [his] privacy, harass, harm and injure [him] via attempted
murder, gross negligence, malfeasance, abuse of process, nonfeasance, larceny, robbery, strong
armed robbery, illegal due process, illegal caption of documents, libel, slander, malice, false arrest,
malicious prosecution, malpractice, aggravated assault, criminal prosecution, illegal incarceration
. . . .” Compl. at 15. The plaintiff continues to list various causes of action for at least another
three pages. In addition, the Complaint includes a narrative of the plaintiff’s employment history,
motor vehicle accidents and traffic violations, his divorce, and the foreclosure of the plaintiff’s
house.
Upon review of the Complaint, the Court is unable to decipher what claims the plaintiff
asserts against which parties and the factual allegations that underlie those claims. Accordingly,
2
the plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed without prejudice.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately.
DATED: APRIL 9, 2012
/s/ Beryl A. Howell
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?