HARRIS v. OLIVER

Filing 43

Entry and Order Dismissing Action - The defendant's motion to dismiss 23 is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/5/2013. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

WILLIAM OSCAR HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. 2:13-cv-11-JMS-WGH

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must provide a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, which is sufficient to provide the
defendant with fair notice of the claim and its basis.” Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff may not rely on mere labels,
conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Here, plaintiff William Harris alleges in his complaint that document he refers to as
“Apostille No. A335219” shows that the Federal Bureau of Prisons can and should correct its
records to show that he has completely satisfied and should be discharged from a conviction for
contempt and sanctions imposed by the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The Bureau of Prisons, however, has not done so.
The Bureau of Prisons has appeared in the action and challenges the legal sufficiency of
the complaint. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the challenge that the complaint lacks the

factual content required to supply the facial plausibility required by Rule 8(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. This is because the complaint supplies only the nature of the intended
lawsuit—the defendant agency’s failure to comply with the fiat declared by Harris--and is
supported only by legal conclusions. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss [dkt 23] is
granted. Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1041 (7th Cir. 1999)("Our system
of justice is adversarial, and our judges are busy people. If they are given plausible reasons for
dismissing a complaint, they are not going to do the plaintiff's research and try to discover
whether there might be something to say against the defendants' reasoning.").
II.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/05/2013
Date: ____________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
William Oscar Harris
#40743-050
Terre Haute FCI
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
All electronically registered counsel