Gripp v. Fed Gov.

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 5/1/2017 granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Separate order shall enter this date dismissing case. cc: plaintiff pro se(KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-223-TBR
DAVID M. GRIPP

PLAINTIFF

v.
FED. GOV.

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David M. Gripp filed the instant pro se action. He also filed an application to
proceed without prepayment of fees (DN 3), which is is GRANTED. However, because the
complaint fails to meet the pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), the action will be
dismissed.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on the Court-approved complaint form for filing a civil case.
He identifies the only Defendant as “Fed. Gov.” and lists Defendant’s job title as “Judge.”
Where the form asks the filer to list the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff states, “I
prozixtion’ss [illegible] to get me payed.” In the statement-of-the-claim portion of the form,
Plaintiff states, “I have not been payed for several things.” In the relief section, Plaintiff states,
“no understanding of laws and [illegible].” There are no other allegations in the complaint.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless
the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet this standard. He fails to set forth
any jurisdictional basis for filing this case in federal court. He fails to provide any coherent
statement of his claim(s) or to ask for relief. Plaintiff, therefore, fails to give Defendant “fair
notice” of his claim(s) against it. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002)
(indicating that the short and plain statement of claim must “‘give the defendant fair notice of
what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’”) (citation omitted).
Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the
duty “does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19
(1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518
F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the Court “to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district
court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the
strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Because Plaintiff fails to allege any jurisdictional basis, factual allegations, or demand for
relief in his complaint, this action will be dismissed by separate Order for failure to meet the
pleading standard in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Date:

May 1, 2017

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4413.010

2