◆ SpookStack

e e THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 8 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE The plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it fails to set forth a claim for relief in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a). Courts have recognized that Rule 8(a) sets out a minimum standard for the sufficiency or complaints, and requires that they at least contain a short and plain statement of the claim that the Pleader is entitled to relief. Hatch v. Reliance Insurance Co., 758 F2d 409, 415 (9th Circ-1985); Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n., 717 F2d 437, 438 (8th Circ-1983); Harris v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 680 F2d 1109 (5th Circ-1982); Washington v. Baenziger, 656 F. Supp. 176 (N.D. Cal~1987); "Santa Barbara Like It Is Today", 94 F.R.D. 105, 108 (D. Nev. 1982); U.S. ex rel Dattola v. National Treasurey Employment Union, 86 F.R.D. 496, 499 (W.D.PA-1980); Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.-1977). Although plaintiff here is pro se and thus his submissions are to be held to a less stringent standard than those drawn by legal counsel, Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 499, it nonetheless is the case that "even a pro se complaint is subject to dismissal if the pleading fails reasonably to inform the adverse party of the asserted cause of action." Id. Indeed, the court in Brown dismissed with prejudice a complaint by a pro se litigant which was a "confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions concerning numerous persons, ... (and) which contained an untidy assortment of claims that were neither plainly nor concisely / 97-QU-8