Adams v. United States Department of the Treasury

D.C. Circuit

Adams v. United States Department of the Treasury

594 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 30, 2015

DocketNo. 14-5050

StatusPublished

This text of 594 F. App'x 1 (Adams v. United States Department of the Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. United States Department of the Treasury, 594 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34Q). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 13, 2014, be affirmed. It would have been preferable had the district court simply struck the unnecessary portions of the pro se complaint or given plaintiff time to do so, and obtained from the defendants a waiver of any statute of limitations defense. But because neither party has suggested there are limitations concerns to plaintiff filing a new complaint, the order of January 13, 2014 is affirmed in view of the district court’s discretion to enforce Rule 8, and the fact that the complaint was unnecessarily detailed at times. See Ciral-sky v. CIA 355 F.3d 661 (D.C.Cir.2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows plaintiff to file a new complaint that meets the requirements of Rule 8. See id. at 669-70.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34Q). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 13, 2014, be affirmed. It would have been preferable had the district court simply struck the unnecessary portions of the pro se complaint or given plaintiff time to do so, and obtained from the defendants a waiver of any statute of limitations defense. But because neither party has suggested there are limitations concerns to plaintiff filing a new complaint, the order of January 13, 2014 is affirmed in view of the district court’s discretion to enforce Rule 8, and the fact that the complaint was unnecessarily detailed at times. See Ciral-sky v. CIA 355 F.3d 661 (D.C.Cir.2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows plaintiff to file a new complaint that meets the requirements of Rule 8. See id. at 669-70.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-united-states-department-of-the-treasury-cadc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack