JARMAN v. WEST VALLEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL DEAN JARMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3705 (UNA)
)
WEST VALLEY CITY POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading “contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “Rule 8(a)
does not require a short and plain complaint, but rather a short and plain statement of the claim.”
Middlebrooks v. St. Coletta of Greater Washington, Inc., No. 09-cv-1281 (ESH), 2009 WL
3163061, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2009) (quoting Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 670) (cleaned up)
(emphasis in original). In addition, Rule 8(d) requires that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall
be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [these provisions]
underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky,
355 F.3d at 668–69 (quoting In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996)
(quoting 5 Wright & Miller § 1217, at 169 (2d ed. 1990))).
The instant complaint, notwithstanding its extraordinarily length (ECF No. 1, at 418
pages), fails to set forth a short and plain statement of claim showing plaintiff’s entitlement to
relief from any defendant. Instead, the complaint only manages to “contain[] an untidy
assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished
Case 1:25-cv-03705-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 2

2
from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and personal comments,” Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D.
497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977), rendering it subject to dismissal. In short, the complaint is “too
unwieldy to proceed,” Spence v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 19-cv-1947, 2022 WL
3354726, at *11 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2022), aff’d, 109 F.4th 531 (D.C. Cir. 2024), and in its current
form “is so confusing that a defendant cannot be expected to frame a response” to it. Brown v.
Dalton, No. 96-5285, 1997 WL 362505, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1997) (per curiam) (citations
omitted).
An Order is issued separately.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 24, 2025 United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03705-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2