◆ SpookStack

s) (8) a 9 ax “insubstantial lawsuits undermine the effectiveness of government as contemplated by our constitutional structure, and firm application of the Federal Rules. of Civil Procedure is fully warranted in such cases"-- Circuit courts have interpreted this to mean that a plaintiff's complaint must address with specificity how the defendant federal officials will not be able to rely on an immunity defense. See, e.g. Blliott v. Perez, 751 F2d 1472 (5th Circ-1985). DEFENDANTS ARES ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM SUIT INDIVIDUALLY Although the complaint is incomprehensibly vague so as to determine if a claim is set for common law tort or constitutional tort liability it must be assumed the plaintiff is complaining about acts performed by said officials in their official duties or conduct. If this is the case, courts require the complaint to set forth all of the factual allegations needed to support the conclusion that the defendant violated clearly established law asserted as the basis of recovery. See Martin v. Malhoyt, (supra at 830 F.2d 254); Dominique v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 676 (6th Circ-1987). The problem here is, nowever, the complaint is so vague it is impossible to tell if statutory or constitutional claims are being alleged. But assuming arguendo that the plaintiff -has met the heightened pleading standard, dismissal would ‘still be required.