752 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1985), 83-1255, Mars v. Hanberry

• Docket Nº: 83-1255.
• Citation: 752 F.2d 254
• Party Name: Joseph Herbert MARS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack A. HANBERRY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Case Date: January 18, 1985
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 254

752 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1985)

Joseph Herbert MARS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Jack A. HANBERRY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 83-1255.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

January 18, 1985

Argued Nov. 27, 1984.

Page 255

Jonathan Golden, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.

Marc L. Goldman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Flint, Mich., Leonard R. Gilman, U.S. Atty., Janice Mann, (argued), Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellee.

Before MARTIN and CONTIE, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

CONTIE, Circuit Judge.

Joseph Herbert Mars appeals the district court's dismissal of his pro se complaint alleging negligent treatment by federal prison officials due to Mars' failure to provide a short and plain statement of his claim and the basis of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Mars contends that dismissal was improper and that the district court erred in denying Mars' request for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On July 15, 1981, Mars filed a complaint against "Jack A. Hanberry, et al." seeking $5.2 million for physical abuse and mental damage pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346, 2671-2680. On August 27, 1981, "defendants", represented by the United States Attorney's Office filed a motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, claiming that the court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, that venue and service were improper, that the complaint failed to state a claim, and that Mars had failed to join an indispensable party. On November 22, 1981, Mars requested the appointment of counsel. The district court granted defendant's motion for a more definite statement and denied Mars' request for appointment of counsel. Mars responded to the court's order by filing a motion for default judgment in which he revealed that his claim was based on an altercation between Mars and prison officers while Mars was a federal prisoner. Mars also alleged that his right to privacy was violated when a prison officer took notes during a visit between Mars and his father. On March 2, 1983, the district court dismissed Mars' complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) for failure to include a short and plain statement of his claim and the basis of jurisdiction.

It is clear that Mars' complaint stated no basis on which the district court...