George v. Litteral et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) As the Complaint filed by George does not comply THE COURT WILL NOT ENTERTAIN GEORGE'S COMPLAINT DE 1 . (2) W/N 30 days from DOE, George must submit an Amended Complaint which does not exceed 15 pages and includes info herein (3) George's failure to comply with this Order w/n the prescribed time limit will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute (4) The Clerk of the Court shall submit the record upon the filing of the Amended Complaint as specf above, or the expiration of George's compliance ddl herein, whichever occurs first. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 11/5/15.(KSS)cc: COR, George (via US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT ASHLAND
JAMES EDWARD GEORGE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHY LITTERAL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 15-CV-95-HRW
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ANDORDER
**** **** **** ****
Plaintiff James Edward George, Jr., is an inmate confined by the Kentucky
Depatiment of Corrections ("KDOC") in the Green River Correctional Complex
("GRCC") located in Central City, Kentucky. Prior to his confinement in the
GRCC, George was confined in the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
("EKCC"), which is located in West Liberty, Kentucky.
Proceeding without counsel, George has filed a 73-page civil rights
complaint [D. E. No. 1] in which he asse1is numerous constitutional claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging various conditions of his prior confinement at the
EKCC. George names as defendants several EKCC officials, and seeks substantial
compensatory and punitive damages from all of the defendants; trial by jury; and
any other relief to which he may be entitled. By separate order, George has been
granted pauper status in this proceeding. As explained below, however, the Court
will not entertain George's Complaint, but will instead give him thi1iy days from
this date in which to file a 15-page Amended Complaint setting forth the basic
information and facts relative to his § 1983 claims, in a more condensed fashion.
DISCUSSION
Because George asserts claims against government officials and has been
granted pauper status in this action, the Comi is required to conduct a preliminary
review of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A. These
statutes require a district comi to dismiss any civil claim which is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. I d.
That review is premature at this time because George has filed a rambling,
73-page Complaint which consists of pages and pages of minute, detailed factual
allegations. He has also attached thereto over seventy (70) pages of exhibits, all of
which he asks this Court to read and consider on initial review.
George has
violated the letter and spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a), which requires that pleadings be
"short" and "plain," and Rule 8(e) requires each averment to be "simple, concise
and direct."
Rule 8 requires plaintiffs "to edit and organize their claims and
suppmiing allegations into a manageable format." Laster v. Pramstaller, No. 08-
2
CV-10898, 2008 WL 1901250, at *2 (E.D. Mich. April 25, 2008) (citing Windsor
v. Colorado Dep 't. ofCorr., 9 F. App'x 967, 968 (1Oth Cir. 2001) (quotation marks
omitted)). Because a district court has limited resources, it possesses the power to
dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2)'s "short and plain statement" requirement. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b); Vakalis v. Shawmut Corp., 925 F.2d 34, 36 (1st Cir. 1991);
Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988).
The Court would be acting within its rights by dismissing the Complaint as
being in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and (e). See Confederate Mem 'I Ass 'n v.
Hines, 995 F.2d 295,298 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (noting the dismissal of RICO claim by
district comi for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)); Resource N.E. of Long Island,
Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 28 F.Supp.2d 786, 795 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (dismissing an
"excessively long-winded" RICO complaint for violation of Rule 8); Flayter v.
Wis. Dep't of Corr., 16 F. App'x 507, 509 (7th Cir. 2001) (dismissing 116-page
complaint pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2)); Burton v. Peartree, 326 F. Supp. 755, 758 (E.
D. Penn. 1971) ("Burton, proceeding pro se, has filed a lengthy and rambling
complaint which contains little more than demands, charges, and conclusions. The
complaint is not a short and plain statement of the case and flagrantly violates Fed.
3
R. Civ. P. 8. On this ground alone the complaint may be dismissed. (Citations
omitted).").
In light of his pro se status, however, the Court will give George thirty (30)
days from the date of entry of this Order in which to submit a concise and
condensed Amended Complaint, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, which complies
with the instructions set fmih below. While a patiy is entitled to state his claims
and arguments, he must observe a reasonable degree of brevity, which a 15-page
Amended Complaint will accommodate.
In his 15-page Amended Complaint, George must provide the following
information: (1) a plain and simple statement setting fotih each type of
constitutional claim that he is asserting (i.e., a First Amendment retaliation claim;
a Fomieenth Amendment due process claim; an Eighth Amendment cruel and
unusual punishment claim); (2) a short and plain statement, preferably no more
than a paragraph, describing the specific actions, or inactions, about which he
complains (i.e., that he was allegedly denied medication or that he was allegedly
the subject of retaliation); (3) the names of each and every defendant who was
allegedly involved in each of
the actions/lack of actions about which he
complains; and (4) the date (either exact or the most approximate) on which each
and every complained-of action involving the named defendants allegedly
4
occurred. See Windsor v. A Fed. Exec. Agency, 614 F.Supp. 1255, 1258 (M.D.
Tenn. 1983) (noting that a 47-page complaint was excessive and "confusing and
distracting," and ordering plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with Rule 8),
ajj'd Mem., 767 F.2d 923 (Table), 1985 WL 13427 (6th Cir. June 27, 1985) (per
curiam).
George's failure to comply with this Order within the prescribe time limit
will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1)
As the Complaint [D. E. No. 1] filed Plaintiff James Edward George,
Jr., does not comply with either the "short and plain statement" requirement
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), or the other pleading requirements set
fmih in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e), THE COURT WILL NOT
ENTERTAIN GEORGE's COMPLAINT [D. E. No.1].
(2)
Within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order, George
must submit a concise and condensed Amended Complaint which does not exceed
fifteen (15) pages, and which includes the all of following information: (a) a plain
and simple statement setting forth each type of constitutional claim which George
is asserting; (b) a short and plain statement, preferably no more than a paragraph,
5
describing the specific actions or inactions about which George complains; (c) the
names of each and every defendant who was allegedly involved in each of the
actions or inactions about which he complains; and (d) the exact date (or if that is
not possible, the most approximate date) on which each and every complained-of
action involving the named defendants allegedly occurred.
(3)
George's failure to comply with this Order within the prescribed time
limit will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
(4)
The Clerk of the Court shall submit the record upon the filing of the
Amended Complaint as specified above, or the expiration of George's compliance
deadline herein, whichever event occurs first.
This November 5, 2015.
6
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?