Barlean v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority

W.D. Oklahoma

Barlean v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority

DecidedJune 9, 2023

Docket5:23-cv-00488

StatusUnknown

This text of Barlean v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (Barlean v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barlean v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority, (W.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

KELLY J. BARLEAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-00488-JD ) OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL ) JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, each allegation in the complaint must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “‘Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.’” Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Significantly, Rule 8(a) establishes a ceiling (the complaint must be no more than a short and plain statement) and not a floor (the complaint must at least be a short and plain statement).” Toevs v. Reid, 267 F. App’x 817, 818–19 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (internal quotations and citation omitted). See also Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148 (affirming dismissal of a 99-page complaint that was made “unintelligible ‘by scattering and concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the few allegations that matter’’’) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)). On preliminary review, Plaintiff's 142-page complaint [Doc. No. 1] does not appear to comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff Kelly J. Barlean is therefore ORDERED to show cause within 14 days why the Court should not dismiss his complaint. Alternatively, by the 14-day deadline, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

KELLY J. BARLEAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-00488-JD ) OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL ) JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, each allegation in the complaint must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “‘Something labeled a complaint but written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.’” Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Significantly, Rule 8(a) establishes a ceiling (the complaint must be no more than a short and plain statement) and not a floor (the complaint must at least be a short and plain statement).” Toevs v. Reid, 267 F. App’x 817, 818–19 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (internal quotations and citation omitted). See also Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148 (affirming dismissal of a 99-page complaint that was made “unintelligible ‘by scattering and concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the few allegations that matter’’’) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003)). On preliminary review, Plaintiff's 142-page complaint [Doc. No. 1] does not appear to comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff Kelly J. Barlean is therefore ORDERED to show cause within 14 days why the Court should not dismiss his complaint. Alternatively, by the 14-day deadline, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barlean v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlean-v-oklahoma-county-criminal-justice-authority-okwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack