United States District Court, D. Maryland
JEROME L. GRIMES Plaintiff,
OFFICER FARMER OFFICER WEILL OFFICER REED OFFICER WIEDER Defendants.
XINIS, United States District Judge.
above-captioned complaint was filed on July 1, 2016, together
with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because plaintiff
appears to be indigent, the motion shall be
a complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the facts
alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level and require “more than labels and
conclusions, ” as “‘courts are not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must
contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Id. at 569. Once a
claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by
showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in
the complaint. Id. at 547. Further, under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a claim for
relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim,
or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the court's
jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of
jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader
seeks. Moreover, each "averment of a pleading shall be
simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1).
“[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
to consider in determining if a complaint fails to comply
with Rule 8(a) include: the length and complexity of the
complaint, see, e.g., United States ex rel. Garst v.
Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir.2003);
whether the complaint was clear enough to enable the
defendant to know how to defend himself, see, e.g.,
Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000);
and whether the plaintiff was represented by counsel.
See, e.g., Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21-22
(2d Cir. 1989).
court has thoroughly examined the complaint and finds it is
insufficient and fails to comply with federal pleading
requirements. Instead of a concise statement of facts as to
the underlying cause of action, the complaint is replete with
legal statements and conclusions. Portions of the complaint
are nonsensical. Even after affording the matter a generous
construction the court cannot determine the precise nature
and jurisdictional basis of the complaint and how each named
defendant is involved. One can only imagine the difficulties
which would ensue in having defendants attempt to answer the
complaint. It is well-settled law that complaint allegations
must “give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.
506, 512, (2002) (internal quotation marks
foregoing reasons the complaint shall be dismissed without
prejudice for the failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
 Plaintiff indicates he hails from
multiple districts, including Louisiana and Florida.
 It would appear that plaintiff is
complaining about the legality of a June 1, 2016 traffic
stop, the subsequent search and seizure of the vehicle, and
the traffic citations he received in Montgomery County,
Maryland. The state court docket shows that he was cited with
a number of traffic citations for the failure to display his
license to uniform police on demand, driving without a
required license and authorization, driving on a revoked
out-of-state license, driving while license is suspended,
driving on a suspended out-of-state license, the failure to
attach vehicle registration plates at front and rear, the
failure to display registration card upon demand by police,
and driving without current registration plates and
validation tabs. State v. Grimes, Citation Nos.
16PODHH, 16QODHH, 16RODHH, 16SODHH, 16TODHH, 16VODHH,
26WODHH, & 16XODHH (District Court For Montgomery
He seeks an injunction to criminally prosecute the officers
and to enjoin them from “invading [his] privacy.”
In addition, he requests an award of compensatory and
 A review of the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (“PACER”) docket reveals that
plaintiff has filed over five hundred civil cases in the
federal district courts, primarily in ...