Davis v. Oklahoma County Jail

Filing 4

ORDER that Plaintiff shall file a complaint that complies with Rule (8)(a) not later than 3/9/2017. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 2/21/2017. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JONATHAN ALLEN DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-160-D

ORDER
Plaintiff has initiated this action by filing pro se, a one-page document bearing
only the case caption; the title, “Complaint;” his signature, address, and telephone
number; and a single word, “kiddnaping” [sic]. He also has completed a civil cover sheet
that describes his cause of action as “Held in jail against my will.” Despite a liberal
construction, Plaintiff’s papers are patently insufficient to satisfy federal pleading
requirements.
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “A civil action is
commenced by filing a complaint with the court.” Rule 8 states that a complaint “must
contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ;
(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 . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). To be sufficient, the
statement must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Padrus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
The Complaint in this case plainly fails to satisfy these requirements. In light of
Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will afford him an opportunity to amend his pleading.
However, Plaintiff is cautioned that a pro se litigant must “‘follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.’” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425
F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.
1994)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a complaint that complies
with Rule 8(a) not later than March 9, 2017. Failure to comply with this Order will result
in the dismissal of this case without further notice to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2017.