Moore v. Williams

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 4, 2025 · No. 5:25-cv-04411

Summary

This memorandum opinion from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addresses a pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a plausible claim. The court finds the allegations vague and lacking sufficient factual detail regarding the personal involvement of the named defendants. The plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims and jurisdictional basis.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Murphy, J.
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Decision date
August 4, 2025
Docket number
5:25-cv-04411
Procedural posture
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 8; request for in forma pauperis status.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint states a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 pleading requirements.
  2. Whether the court should grant the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Holdings

  1. The complaint fails to state a plausible civil‑rights claim because it does not allege how the defendants personally acted under color of state law; consequently, the complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8.
  2. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Key quotations

The Court grants Mr. Moore leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. (at 2)
In short, it is completely unclear what, if anything, any of the Defendants Mr. Moore has named did that caused him harm. No defendant could reasonably be expected to respond to his allegations because they are confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible. Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8. (at 4)

Factual background

Lindell Moore was arrested in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on a warrant issued by the Radnor Township Police Department, extradited to Delaware County, and posted a $30,000 bail. He alleges mental disorders stemming from the incident and seeks damages, but provides no specific factual allegations linking Defendants Warden Laura Williams or Officer Sean C. Camburn to any constitutional violation.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging civil‑rights violations. The court considered the pleadings and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis while dismissing the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim.

Remand instructions

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that clearly sets out the factual bases of any claim; the dismissal is entered but the case is not closed pending amendment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…