Profitt v. U.S. Marshal's Case, No. 3:2010cv00310 - Document 4 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 5/19/2010. For the reasons set forth, the Court will dismiss the action by separate order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (AEP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-310-H MIKE PROFITT PLAINTIFF v. U.S. MARSHAL S DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Mike Profitt filed a pro se complaint against the U.S. Marshal s. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. In the instant case, Plaintiff s complaint is simply too illegible and incoherent to meet Rule 8(a) s notice-pleading requirement. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (indicating that the short and plain statement of claim must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests ) (citation omitted). The Court will, therefore, dismiss the action by separate Order. Date: May 19, 2010 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4412.005
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
