Atuahene v. City of Hartford

holding that complaint failed to meet minimum pleading standard “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” | holding that “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the] complaint failed to satisfy [Rule 8’s] minimum standard” | holding that “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the] complaint failed to satisfy [Rule 8’s] minimum standard” | holding that complaint failed to meet - 31 - minimum pleading standard “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” | explaining that “lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” fails to satisfy minimum “fair notice” standard of FRCP Rule 8 | explaining that “lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” fails to satisfy minimum “fair notice” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 | stating that Rule 8(a) “does not demand that a complaint be a model of clarity or exhaustively present the facts alleged,” as long as it gives each defendant “fair notice of what plaintiffs claim is and the facts upon which it rests” | finding as impermissible the lumping of all defendants under each claim without setting forth a factual basis to distinguish their conduct | affirming dismissal of complaint where the complaint “lump[ed] all the defendants together in each claim and provid[ed] no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” | granting a motion to dismiss for failure to provide fair notice under Rule 8 in part because “[t]he complaint failed to differentiate among the defendants, alleging instead violations by ‘the defendants’” | granting a motion to dismiss for failure to provide fair notice under Rule 8 in part because “[t]he complaint failed to differentiate among the defendants, alleging instead violations by ‘the defendants’” | granting motion to dismiss for failure to provide fair notice under Rule 8 in part because “[t]he complaint failed to differentiate among the defendants, alleging instead violations by ‘the defendants’ and failed to identify any factual basis for the legal claims made” | granting a motion to dismiss for failure to provide fair notice under Rule 8 in part because “[t]he complaint failed to differentiate among the defendants, alleging instead violations by ‘the defendants’ and failed to identify any factual basis for the legal claims made” | the ALJ is not required to develop the record any further when the evidence already presented is adequate for the ALJ to make a determination as to disability | “By lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [plaintiff]’s complaint failed to satisfy th[e] minimum standard [under Rule 8].” | a pleading that “lump[s] all defendants together in each claim and provid[es] no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” fails to provide the defendant with the requisite Rule 8 notice | "By lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the plaintiff's] complaint failed to satisfy th[e] minimum standard [set forth in Rule 8]" | district court properly dismissed the complaint because “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the] complaint failed to satisfy [Rule 8].” | "By lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the plaintiff]’s complaint failed to satisfy th[e] minimum standard [set forth in Rule 8]." | "By lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the plaintiff]’s complaint failed