Hampton v. City of Houston et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL entered for failure to comply with this court's orders and for failure to prosecute. Case terminated on 4/7/08.( Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal ) Parties notified.(leddins, )

Hampton v. City of Houston et al

Doc. 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RONALD HANLEY HAMPTON, Plaintiff, VS. CITY OF HOUSTON, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § §

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-07-4092

ORDER OF DISMISSAL The plaintiff, Ronald Hanley Hampton, has filed a lengthy complaint against a number of defendants, spanning decades of events. The plaintiff seeks $100 billion in damages. Hampton is proceeding in forma pauperis. A review of the complaint reveals a confusing, unintelligible document containing rambling allegations concerning a series of events that have occurred since 1991. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief 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 . . . ." While a plaintiff is not required to set out in detail all the facts upon which he bases his claim, the Federal Rules do require a short and plain statement of the claim being asserted so as to give the defendants fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007); Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007). Even

Dockets.Justia.com

reading Hampton's complaint in the liberal manner afforded to pro se pleadings, it is unintelligible. On February 26, 2008, this court entered an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend no later than March 25, 2008, to set out a short and plain statement of the claim showing that Hampton is entitled to the relief he seeks. The order told Hampton that failure to do so may lead to dismissal with prejudice. The docket shows no activity since then. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's order, and for failure to prosecute.

SIGNED on April 7, 2008, at Houston, Texas. ______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal United States District Judge