Hohenstein v. Caroline Co. Sheriff's Office

Case 1:06-cv-02764-JFM Document 11 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TINA L. HOHENSTEIN v. ...

0 Downloads 17 Views
Case 1:06-cv-02764-JFM Document 11 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TINA L. HOHENSTEIN v. CAROLINE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET AL.

* * * Civil No. JFM-06-2764 * * * ***** MEMORANDUM

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the “Caroline County Sheriff’s Office” as a defendant. They have also filed a motion for more definite statement. Both motions will be granted. The “Caroline County Sheriff’s Office” is not a legal entity capable of being sued. See, e.g., Boyer v. State, 323 Md. 558, 572 (1991); Rebene v. Charles County Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870, 874 (4th Cir. 1984). The proper defendant in an action such as this is Sheriff Philip Brown, who is named as a defendant. The only “complaint” filed by plaintiff consists of documents she had filed with the EEOC asserting employment discrimination. Although pleadings must be construed liberally in favor of pro se plaintiffs like Ms. Hohenstein, a pro se plaintiff cannot be entirely relieved of the responsibilities imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8 requiring a party asserting a claim to relief to provide “a short and plaint statement of the claims.” Plaintiff is hereby advised that unless she files an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 on or before December 7, 2006 this action will be dismissed.

Date: November 22, 2006

/s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge