McCann v. Clark

191 F.2d 476
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedNovember 5, 1951
Docket881_1
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 191 F.2d 476 (McCann v. Clark) 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
McCann v. Clark, 191 F.2d 476 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Opinion

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.

*477 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.

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

Related

Webb v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
District of Columbia, 2024
Banks v. United States of America
District of Columbia, 2019
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Department
530 F.3d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Holsey v. Collins
90 F.R.D. 122 (D. Maryland, 1981)
Luther Robinson Maddox v. Raymond O. Shroyer
302 F.2d 903 (D.C. Circuit, 1962)
Avin v. Verta
106 A.2d 145 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1954)
Condol v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
199 F.2d 400 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)
Passic v. State
98 F. Supp. 1015 (E.D. Michigan, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 F.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccann-v-clark-cadc-1951.