The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Using this District's civil rights complaint form, Plaintiff Robert Ossie Dinkins has attempted to file a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see Doc. 1). His statement of claim fills the first 10 lines provided for that purpose, but it is a rambling, incoherent list of topics with no allegations made against any named defendant. After the first five pages, the rest of this 79-page pleading consists of case law print-outs, grievances and other records from the Missouri Department of Corrections, handwritten affidavits, and a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Rule 8(a)(2) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." In addition, Rule 8(e)(1) states that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." The primary purpose of these provisions is rooted in fair notice: Under Rule 8, a complaint "'must be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.'" Wade v. Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 868, 114 S.Ct. 193, 126 L.Ed.2d 151 (1993); see also Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434, 1436 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating that a complaint "must be presented with clarity sufficient to avoid requiring a district court or opposing party to forever sift through its pages in search" of what it is the plaintiff asserts). A complaint that is prolix and/or confusing makes it difficult for the defendant to file a responsive pleading and makes it difficult for the trial court to conduct orderly litigation.
Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir. 1994). See also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957); Dausch v. Rykse, 52 F.3d 1425, 1430 (7th Cir. 1994).
The Court finds that Plaintiff's purported complaint does not provide such a short and plain statement of the claim, as fully described above. In fact, the Court is unable to discern any cognizable claim made against any named defendant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff is advised that the dismissal of this action will count as one of his three allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he now has three or more dismissals pursuant to § 1915A. See also Dinkins v. CMS, Case No. 06-cv-4303-NKL (W.D. Mo., filed Dec. 26, 2006); Dinkins v. State of Missouri, Case No. 08-cv-4009-NKL (W.D. Mo., filed Jan. 11, 2008). Therefore, he may no longer seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the federal courts unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...