Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” and a complaint is insufficient under Rule 8 “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”
How later courts described this case
- Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” and a complaint is insufficient under Rule 8 “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:22-cv-01022-RGK-KS Document 4 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 22-1022-RGK (KS) Date: March 9, 2022
Title Frederick Brown v. Twin Towers Chief Medical Officer
Present: The Honorable: Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge
Gay Roberson N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL
On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee currently housed at the Twin
Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint sues the “Twin
Towers Chief Medical Officer” for “knowingly” exposing Plaintiff to inmates infected with
COVID-19 and refusing Plaintiff medical treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff demands $10,000 in
compensatory damages. (Id.)
At the outset, the Complaint does not describe what specific acts on the part of the Twin
Towers Chief Medical Officer constitute unconstitutional conduct, and therefore, it violates Rule
8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation” and a complaint is insufficient under Rule 8 “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid
of ‘further factual enhancement.’”) (citation omitted).
Additionally, on February 15, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay
the filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) Three weeks
have now passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s notification. Accordingly, because
Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor obtained authorization to proceed without prepayment
of the fee, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause, no later than March
30, 2022, why the action should not be dismissed.
CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 2
Case 2:22-cv-01022-RGK-KS Document 4 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 22-1022-RGK (KS) Date: March 9, 2022
Title Frederick Brown v. Twin Towers Chief Medical Officer
To that end, the Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the Central District’s civil
rights complaint form (CV-66) and a copy of the Central District’s form Request to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60). To discharge this Order and proceed
with his case, Plaintiff must either: (1) pay the $400 filing fee in full; or (2) file the completed
forms, and the necessary documentation, with the Court on or before the March 30, 2022
deadline. Plaintiff is also strongly encouraged to use the Central District’s form civil rights
complaint to file an amended complaint that clearly specifies the number and nature of his claims
for relief and the facts underpinning each claim.
Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this Order will result in a recommendation
of dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer gr
CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 2