Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IBN-Sadiika v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 28, 2007

ABDULLAH HANEEF IBN-SADIIKA, PLAINTIFF
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the complaint in the above-captioned case (Doc. 1, Ex. A), and it appearing that many of the paragraphs in the complaint are not limited to a single set of circumstances, see FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b) ("All averments of claim . . . shall be made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited . . . to a statement of a single set of circumstances . . . ."), and that the complaint sets forth neither a short nor plain statement of the claims, see FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) ("A [complaint] . . . shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ."), but contains lengthy and verbose factual averments and legal arguments, see FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e)(1) ("Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct."); see also In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702-03 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing counts, pursuant to Rule 8, in a complaint that was "unnecessarily complicated and verbose" and included an overview of the alleged wrongful conduct); id. at 703 ("We see nothing to prevent the district court . . . from requiring, as a matter of prudent case management, that plaintiffs streamline and reorganize the complaint before allowing it to serve as the document controlling discovery, or, indeed, before requiring defendants to file an answer." (citation omitted)); Burks v. City of Phila., 904 F. Supp. 421, 424 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (striking the complaint in its entirety because it "is a fact-laden . . . narrative that describes in unnecessary, burdensome, and often improper argumentative detail, every instance of alleged racial discrimination perpetrated . . . . [and] reads more like a novel than the legal pleading it purports to be"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN in its entirety.

2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, on or before April 27, 2007, in conformity with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), (e), 10(b). Failure to comply with this paragraph will result in the dismissal of this case.

3. The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of the complaint and exhibits (Doc. 1, Ex. A) to pro se plaintiff, via regular mail.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

20070328

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.