Webster v. Jones
Filing
39
ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH WEBSTER,
Plaintiff,
19-cv-11928
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
v.
ROBERT JONES,
ORDER OF SUMMARY
DISMISSAL
Defendant.
Joseph Webster is currently detained in the Wayne County Jail, in
Detroit, Michigan. He has filed a total of 35 handwritten letters with the
Court, beginning with two letters on June 3, 2019, then six letters on
June 4, 2019, two on June 6, 2019, two on June 10, 2019, sixteen on July
15, 2019, one on July 16, 2019, one on July 19, 2019, two on July 22, 2019,
two on July 29, 2019, and one on August 7, 2019. The letters are
addressed to Chief Judge Denise Page Hood and concern a multitude of
topics, most unrelated to one another. The Clerk’s Office docketed the
first letter as a prisoner civil rights complaint (ECF No. 1) and the
subsequent letters as just that, letters (ECF Nos. 2–12, 14–30, 32–36,
37). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this case
without prejudice.
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “A civil
action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Webster’s
letters do not indicate that he intends to file a complaint. He has not
submitted any application to proceed in forma pauperis, so if these letters
were to be considered a complaint, Webster would be assessed the full
filing fee for this action, which is substantial. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that
upon the filing of a complaint, a prisoner becomes responsible for
payment of the entire filing fee), overruled on other grounds by Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). The Court therefore declines to construe
Webster’s letters as a complaint under Rule 3.
If Webster wishes to file a complaint, there is a form civil rights
complaint that he can use. A copy of that form will be included with the
served copy of this Order. If he wishes to pursue his case, Webster must
plainly set forth the defendants and the grounds upon which he seeks
relief. The filing of additional letters addressed to Chief Judge Hood or
the undersigned will not be sufficient to commence a civil action in this
Court.
The case is also subject to dismissal because the letters fail to
comply Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule
requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the
2
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
(emphasis supplied). It is difficult to understand the facts alleged in
Webster’s letters and to discern what relief he seeks from this Court.
Fundamentally, the letters fail to set forth a short and plain statement
of his claims and therefore fail to comply with Rule 8(a)(2).
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 19, 2019
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
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?