UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

LYNN M. STRONG, 

 PLAINTIFF, 

 VS. 

BP WHITING REFINERY, 

 DEFENDANT. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-384-RLM-JEM

OPINION and ORDER 

 BP Products North America Inc., referred to as BP Whiting Refinery in 

the complaint, has moved to dismiss Lynn M. Strong’s pro se complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). BP maintains that Mr. 

Strong’s complaint is unintelligible and leaves BP without the ability to craft an 

answer. Mr. Strong hasn’t responded to BP’s motion, and the time for doing so 

has passed. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d). 

 The minimum requirements for pleading a claim for relief are found in 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires “a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and each allegation to 

be “simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). “The primary 

purpose of [Rule 8] is rooted in fair notice: Under Rule 8, a complaint must be 

presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to 

understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.” Vicom, Inc. v. 

Harbridge Merchant Servs., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 1994). 
-2- 

 Mr. Strong’s complaint can’t be said to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). The 

complaint contains a form employment discrimination complaint that refers to 

the attachments for the legal claim and factual basis. The attachments include 

an eleven-page summary of Mr. Strong’s employment history with BP, a letter 

from the EEOC, an EEOC charge, an article, and a job description. The 

complaint doesn’t contain a “short and plain statement” of his claims or 

“simple, concise, and direct” allegations and other than the general reference to 

three rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 

complaint contains no citation to the law governing his claims. The complaint 

might include claims of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation. 

 Rule 8 requires something “more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). Pro se litigants’ pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and are 

construed especially generously in the pro se litigant’s favor. Haines v. Kerner, 

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But a minimal coherence is needed for any 

construction, generous or otherwise. The court can’t ascertain whether Mr. 

Strong alleges a valid claim, and BP can’t appropriately respond to the 

complaint. 

 For the forgoing reasons, the court GRANTS the defendant’s motion to 

dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) (Doc. No. 

5). Because the court can’t determine the claims that Mr. Strong asserts, at 

this time, the court declines to address the defendant’s argument that 
-3- 

dismissal is appropriate for failure to state a claim. Mr. Strong is AFFORDED 

to and including April 25, 2014 to file an amended complaint. If no amended 

complaint is filed by that date, judgment will be entered against him. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: March 24, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court