Jack . Dougherty, A/ppellant v. R. K. Procunier, Etc.

Ninth Circuit

Jack . Dougherty, A/ppellant v. R. K. Procunier, Etc.

442 F.2d 1345, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9655

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1971

Docket25309

StatusPublished

This text of 442 F.2d 1345 (Jack . Dougherty, A/ppellant v. R. K. Procunier, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jack . Dougherty, A/ppellant v. R. K. Procunier, Etc., 442 F.2d 1345, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9655 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dougherty is a California state prisoner. He filed an action in the District Court against certain of his custodians, claiming that they had violated his civil rights to his damage in the sum of over $23,000,000. The District Court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that its allegations were not “plain and concise” and that they were “garbled,” vague, and unintelligible. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that applicable Rules pertaining to pleading required that Dougherty’s complaint not be entertained. Accordingly, the judgment is

Affirmed. 1

1

. The appellant has requested the appointment of an attorney to assist him with this appeal. This being a civil action, we have declined to make the requested appointment.

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

PER CURIAM:

Dougherty is a California state prisoner. He filed an action in the District Court against certain of his custodians, claiming that they had violated his civil rights to his damage in the sum of over $23,000,000. The District Court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that its allegations were not “plain and concise” and that they were “garbled,” vague, and unintelligible. We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that applicable Rules pertaining to pleading required that Dougherty’s complaint not be entertained. Accordingly, the judgment is

Affirmed. 1

1

. The appellant has requested the appointment of an attorney to assist him with this appeal. This being a civil action, we have declined to make the requested appointment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 1345, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-dougherty-appellant-v-r-k-procunier-etc-ca9-1971.