◆ SpookStack

| ee ad stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bald conclusions, we sharp harangues and personal comments." Id. at 499. ‘This language from Brown describes plaintiff's Complaint in this case. The purpose of Rule 8 is to "give fair notice of the claim(s) being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the Opportunity to file a responsive answer, vrepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable." Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. at 498. While plaintiff must be afforded reasonable latitude in meeting the formal pleading requirements of the federal rules, he must, in fairness to this Court and the defendants, comply with those rules. Here, plaintiff's unfocused assertions manifestly fail to conform to the requirements of Rule 8. It is respectfully submitted that the rules would be violated if said defendants were required to answer this complaint and to subject themselves to discovery when the plaintiff has failed to present any of his claims in an orderly and comprehensible fashion. This is especially so where it appears many of the defendants have been sued in their individual capacities. If these defendants have been sued in a Bivens action, heightened pleading standards are mandated. See Smith v. Nixon, 807 F2d 197, 200 (D.C. Circ-1986); Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F2d 237, 253 (D.C. Circ-1987).