IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 5, 2008
MICHELLE GALVANI, PLAINTIFF
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2008, upon consideration of the complaint in the above-captioned case (Doc. 1), and it appearing that the claims in the complaint are not in "numbered paragraphs, the contents of each which shall be limited . . . to a statement of a single set of circumstances," see FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b); see also In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 703 (3d Cir. 1996) ("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)), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN in its entirety.
2. The Clerk of Court shall return the complaint and exhibits (Doc. 1) to plaintiff but shall retain a copy of the document on the docket in the above-captioned case.
3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, on or before April 4, 2008, that substantially complies with the requirements of federal and local rules of procedure. See, e.g. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), 8(e), 10(b). Failure to comply with this paragraph will result in the dismissal of this case.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.