IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VINCENT JAMES SARNOWSKI, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-06-534

:

vs. : (Complaint Filed 3/14/06)

:

ASHLEY RUMMINGS, ET AL., : (Judge Muir)

:

Defendants :

ORDER

March 14, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On March 14, 2006, Vincent James Sarnowski, who resides

at 1324 West Third Street, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, filed pro

se a civil complaint. The body of the form complaint is three

pages in length and completed in barely legible handwriting. 

Attached to the complaint are 38 pages of various documents.

including a state court criminal complaint. The only defendant

named in the complaint is Ashley Rummings, who resides in

Williamsport. However, the docket sheet lists Rummings and the

following as defendants: Williamsport Police Department, Judge

Brown, Judge Keiser, Adult Probation, Sheriff Hookers,

Pennsylvania State Police, West Branch Drug Counseling, Wise

Options, District Justice Carnes, District Justice Page, and

Muncy Bank & Trust.

Along with the complaint, Sarnowski filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. We are unable to

discern from that application whether or not Sarnowski is

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. He states he is not

presently employed but then states that he earns $90,000

Case 4:06-cv-00534-MM Document 4 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 4
2

annually. He further states that he has received money from (1)

a business, profession or self-employment, (2) rents payments,

interest or dividends and (3) gifts or inheritances in the last

12 months but does not specify the amounts. Because Sarnowski

has not sufficiently established his inability to pay the $250.00

filing fee we will deny his application without prejudice.

Pro se parties are accorded substantial deference and

liberality in federal court. Haines vs. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972); Hughes vs. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). They are not,

however, free to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint

contain a short and plain statement setting forth (1) the grounds

upon which the court's jurisdiction rests, (2) the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for

judgment for the relief sought by the pleader.

A complaint in order to comply with Rule 8 must contain

at least a modicum of factual specificity, identifying the

particular conduct of the defendant or defendants which is

alleged to have harmed the plaintiff, so that the court can

determine that the complaint is not frivolous and a defendant has

adequate notice to frame an answer. Frazier vs. Southeastern Pa.

Transp. Auth., 785 F.2d 65, 68 (3d Cir. 1986). A complaint

complies with this standard if it alleges the conduct violating

the plaintiff's rights, the time and the place of that conduct,

and the identity of the responsible defendants.

Case 4:06-cv-00534-MM Document 4 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 4
3

Under even the most liberal construction, Sarnowski

complaint is a flagrant violation of Rule 8. It does not give

defendants fair notice of what his claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests. Even taking into account the fact that

Sarnsowski is proceeding pro se, his complaint is not in

conformity with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

It certainly does not set forth in brief, concise, and

understandable terms of what he is complaining. 

Answering Sarnowski's complaint in standard form, that

is, by admission or denial, would be impossible. Accordingly, it

is subject to sua sponte dismissal by the court. Such dismissal

will be ordered with leave to file an amended complaint. See

Salahudin vs. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988).

Sarnowski is also reminded that the amended complaint

must be complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading

which stands by itself without reference to the complaint already

filed. Such amended complaint should set forth his claims in

short, concise and plain statements. It should specify which

actions are alleged as to which defendants. The complaint should

not contain legal argument or reference to court cases. 

If Sarnowski fails to file an amended complaint

adhering to the standards set forth above within the time

prescribed, this case will be closed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Case 4:06-cv-00534-MM Document 4 Filed 03/14/06 Page 3 of 4
4

2. Within 60 days from the date hereof Plaintiff may

file an amended complaint setting forth his claims in conformity

with Rule 8. 

3. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint 

within 60 days of the date hereof, the Clerk of Court will be

directed to close this case.

4. The Clerk of Court shall attach to this order a

copy of this court's §1983 standard complaint form.

5. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied without prejudice.

6. Plaintiff shall within 60 days of the date hereof

submit a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis

or the $250.00 filing fee. The Clerk of Court shall provide

Plaintiff with the standard form application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

 s/Malcolm Muir 

 MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:gs

Case 4:06-cv-00534-MM Document 4 Filed 03/14/06 Page 4 of 4