Taylor v. Board of Education et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/14/13. (c/m 6/14/13 mps, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NATHAN TAYLOR

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

BOARD OF EDUCATION,
BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM, and
BROWN v BROWN BOARD
OF EDUCATION

*

Defendants

Civil Action No.ELH-13-1296

*
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM

The above-captioned case was filed on June 5, 2013, together with a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 2. Because he appears to be indigent, plaintiff’s motion shall be
granted.
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and must be
dismissed. The substance of the complaint consists of bald allegations of “fraud,” “prejudice”
and “discrimination” without supporting facts or allegations against specific parties allegedly
responsible for actual harm caused to plaintiff. ECF 1 at p. 2. In addition, plaintiff includes a
rambling diatribe consisting of random references to persons such as Wesley Pipes, Brian
Pumper, Aurora Julie, and Bernard Madoff, the relevance of which is indecipherable. Id. at p. 4.
The complaint does not comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2),
which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Moreover, Rule 8(e)(1) requires that each averment of a pleading be “simple, concise,
and direct.” A pleading must give the court and defendants “fair notice of what the plaintiff's
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swirkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512

(2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A court may dismiss a complaint
that is “so confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any,
is well disguised.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988).
Here, the complaint is not a “short and plain statement,” nor is it “concise and direct.”
And, the convoluted narratives, together with the unsubstantiated conclusions, render the
complaint incomprehensible. As such it does not provide this court or any potential defendants
with “fair notice” of the claims and facts upon which they are based.
A separate Order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, follows.

June 14, 2013
Date

/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

2