United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
January 14, 2004.
THOMAS R. MULVIHILL
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEGROME DAVIS, District Judge
Plaintiff Thomas Mulvihill ("Plaintiff) filed this action against
Defendant United States Post Office ("Defendant") on April 21, 2003.
Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 6).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See
Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103(3dCir. 1990): Sturm
v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009. 1011 (3d Cir. 1987). In considering a motion to
dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations of the
complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Board of Trs. of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local
6 of N.J. v. Wettlin Assoc., Inc., 237 F.3d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). This
is especially true where, as here, the complaint is filed pro se. See
McGrath v. Johnson, 67 F. Supp.2d 499, 505 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (The court
must "read a pro se Plaintiff's allegations liberally and apply a less
stringent standard to the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff than to a
complaint drafted by counsel."); Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369
(3d Cir. 2003) (noting that a court must liberally construe the pleadings
of a pro se plaintiff). Nevertheless, even pro se plaintiffs must comply
with the Rules of Civil Procedure and draft a complaint to which
defendants can meaningfully respond.
Plaintiff's Complaint does not satisfy even the most relaxed pleading
standard. It either omits altogether or fails to identify with any
specificity the parties, the jurisdictional basis of Plaintiff's claims,
proper venue, any factual allegations, the nature of Plaintiff's claims
and/or the legal basis for those claims, and the relief requested.
Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint is blank.
ACCORDINGLY, this ___ day of January, 2004, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 6), and Plaintiff's response
thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to Plaintiff's right to file by February 11, 2004 an amended
complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1