Hawkins v. Haley

D.C. Circuit

Hawkins v. Haley

321 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 2009

DocketNo. 08-7130

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 1 (Hawkins v. Haley) 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

Hawkins v. Haley, 321 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 24, 2008, 2008 WL 4725706, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s case without pi’ejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that meets the requirements of Rule 8(a). 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 bane. See Fed. R.App. 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

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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 24, 2008, 2008 WL 4725706, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s case without pi’ejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that meets the requirements of Rule 8(a). 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 bane. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-haley-cadc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack