◆ SpookStack

specificity standard, the Supreme Court has admonished lower federal courts not to perpetuate lawsuits such as this one that cry out for dismissal. Specifically, the Court has said: “Insubstantial lawsuits can be quickly terminated by federal courts alert to the possibilities of artful pleading. Unless the complaint states a compensable claim for relief under the Federal Constitution, it should not survive a motion to dismiss." Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. at 507-08. A plaintiff seeking to sue federal officials individually must plead detailed factual allegations tying each defendant to the alleged wrongdoing. See, e.g., Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Dept., 812 F.2d 1425, 1434-35 (D.C. Circ-1987), vacated in part & reh. en banc granted No. 85-06071 (D.C. Circ-May 8, 1987); Smith v. Nixon, 807 F.24 197, 200 (D.C. Circ-1986); Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 807 F.2a 204 (D.C. Circ-1986). Here plaintiff has neither identified any alleged “constitutional violations by defendants nor pleaded any specific facts that tie each defendant to any wrongdoing. It is apparent, therefore, that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendants since he has failed to meet the "heightened pleading standard" applicable in Bivens cases. Smith v. Nixon, 807 F.2d at 200. Further, as the Supreme Court stated in Harlow v. Pitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819-20, N. 35 /9p- alee