MCCANN
v.
CLARK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the complaint was properly dismissed for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Plaintiff sued the Attorney General for damages allegedly suffered while an inmate of a federal mental hospital. The Attorney General moved to dismiss…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Gene McCann, sued the appellee, Tom C. Clark, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He claimed damages for various indignities to which he said he was subjected while he was an inmate of a federal mental hospital, and charged that -the appellee was the author of his misfortunes. At the time of appellee’s alleged acts, he was the Attorney General of the United States.
The appellee moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which was the pleading before the court, for the reason that it did not state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. McCann appeals from the order granting the motion and dismissing his first amended complaint.'
The pleading occupies 14 printed pages in the record. It contains scurrilous matter and is prolix and redundant. We cannot be certain whether the appellant claimed $200,-000 in damages or $1,200,000. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., requires that
“(a) * * * A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief * * * shall contain * * * (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief * *
Section (e) of the same Rule requires that “(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” The pleading in the case before us does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim, and its averments are neither simple, concise nor direct. It is so flagrantly violative of Rule 8 that it should have been dismissed on that ground if on no other. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddox v. Shroyer, 302 F.2d 903 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
-
Condol v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 199 F.2d 400 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
-
Taylor v. United States Bd. OF Parole, 194 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1952)