Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

191 F.2d 476

Docket No. 10,881.

McCann v. Clark

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 21, 1951.

Decided June 21, 1951.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 5, 1951.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-06-21

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2008

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

70195119601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1See 72 S.Ct. 112.

¶2Gene McCann, pro se.

¶3*Mr. Ross O’Donoghue, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

¶4Before EDGERTON and WILBUR K. MILLER, -Circuit Judges, and ARTHUR F. LEDERLE, District Judge, sitting by designation.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The appellant, Gene McCann, sued the appellee, Tom C. Clark, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He claimed damages for various indignities to which he said he was subjected while he was an inmate of a federal mental hospital, and charged that -the appellee was the author of his misfortunes. At the time of appellee’s alleged acts, he was the Attorney General of the United States.

¶7The appellee moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which was the pleading before the court, for the reason that it did not state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. McCann appeals from the order granting the motion and dismissing his first amended complaint.'

¶8The pleading occupies 14 printed pages in the record. It contains scurrilous matter and is prolix and redundant. We cannot be certain whether the appellant claimed $200,-000 in damages or $1,200,000.

¶9*477Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., requires that

“(a) A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

¶10Section (e) of the same Rule requires that “(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” The pleading in the case before us does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim, and its averments are neither simple, concise nor direct. It is so flagrantly violative of Rule 8 that it should have been dismissed on that ground if on no other.

¶11Affirmed.

/191/f2d/476 · .json · Public domain