Juste v. Kerry et al, No. 3:2017cv00217 - Document 9 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 10/25/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Juste v. Kerry et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANDRE JUSTE, lE fRl OCT 2 5 20l7 1n l CLERK, U.S. 0:STi11GT COURl RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:17CV217 JOHN F. KERRY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a federal detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action. Courts must liberally construe pro se civil rights complaints in order to address constitutional deprivations. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, "[p]rinciples requiring generous construction of prose complaints are not ... without limits." Beaudet/ v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs current allegations fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on August 31, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a particularized complaint within fourteen ( 14) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the August 31, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond Dockets.Justia.com to the Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs outstanding motion (ECF No. 5) will be DENIED. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Isl M. Hannah Lauck United States Dist ict udge l Date: l 0 z.t; { 1'( Richmond, Virginia 2
]]>
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.
