United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
Edward Charlip ("Charlip") has just filed a pro se Complaint against U.S. Bank National Association, both individually and as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Although Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) teaches that filings by pro se litigants are to be viewed through a more generous lens than lawyer-drafted filings, Charlip's submission is so far out of bounds that a do-over is clearly required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(a)(2) requires that a plaintiff's pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." What Charlip has tendered instead is a 43-page, 307-paragraph Complaint coupled with no fewer than 22 exhibits, with the entire filing being no less than an inch thick.
Needless to say, Charlip's Complaint would impose an inordinate burden on any defendant compelled to fashion an answer. Moreover, Charlip's thick passel of exhibits is also totally at odds with federal practice, which calls for notice pleading rather than permitting the pleading of evidence. Accordingly Charlip's Complaint is stricken sua sponte, but without prejudice to ...