IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

KENNETH FREDRICK KLEIN, If, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:22cv802 CHRISTOPHER DOLIN and CHRISTINA RAULS-DOLIN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Kenneth F. Klein, III’s Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Klein’s Amended Complaint offends Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction and a statement of the claims showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and the Court’s May 10, 2023 Order directives regarding the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 19.) The Court ordered that Klein file a Third Amended Complaint, “which outlines in simple and straightforward terms why [Klein] thinks that he is entitled to relief and why the Court has jurisdiction over the case.” (ECF No. 19, at 1.) The Court ordered that the Third Amended Complaint comply with the following directions: 1. At the very top of the amended pleading, Klein must place the following caption in all capital letters: “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 3:22cv802.”

2.Thfier psatr aogtfrh apepart hi culaarmiezncedodem dp mluasciton ntat l aioisfnt defen)dT.anh te(rseiatnfth beeor do,yft h peart iculaamreinczdoeemddp laint, Klemiunss tefo tr tlhe giisbnel pyar,na utmeblpeyar readg asr haosprthtas t ement otfh faec gtisv riintsghoe i c sl afoirrm esl Tiheefr.ei aftsnee rp,ar caatpetliyo ned sectKiloemniusnsc, tl eiadrelneyta ifcfyeh d oersr talalat awel levgieodllayt ed. Undeearc h Kselcemtiuinslo tien sa,tdc ehfe npduanrpto rltieaudbnlldytee h ra t legtahlea onredyx pwlhahyieb n e lieeavdceehsfe nidlsani tat bholi emS .u ch explansahtoiruoelnfed r tehnsecp eec niufimcb faecrtepudara alg riatnph bheos d y otfh pea rticamuelnadcreoidmz petldha saiutnp tthp aoatrs ts ertion. 3.Klesihnaa llislno c tlhurede elh iere efq u-ewshitathnste l aiwcs a lal" epdr ayer forr elief." 4.Thpea rticamuelnadcreoidmz pemldua ssittn antod rfa lolni toswa nc coKrlde.i n manyo rte fersetnacteei mtneh pnert icsoo rm plaints. 5.Thpea rticamuelnadreidz ecdo mopmlaiaintnuy tn nmeucisentsc soarryp oration offa ctaulalle gfoarpt airotncislc auailnmaardsn c yl aaigma aniynd setfe ndant thiansto w te ll-girtnoh lueanan wdd efa dc tS.eS ee wvrG.azu ice, No3.: 08c2v000WL38 53 ,9 26a4*t42 (3 E,.V DaA..u g2.62 ,0 0)8. (ECNFo1 .9a ,3t -4 .) ThCeo ufirntdt shK alte Tihni'Arsmd e nCdoemdp ldaoinenosctt o mwpiltyth hce l ear instrsuefoctrt tiithnoh nCeso urMta'1ys0 2, 0 2O3r der.N o1(.9E F.Co)Ftr h" es tatoefm ent thfaec gtisv riintsghoe i c sl afoirrm esl (iEeCf,NF"o1 .9a ,4t, )D olsiinma pslsyte hrtast "ChristDooplshiwenoor ru 2et3arr esfotrPs l aitnht"ai[tffP ,]"lw aahisen ilttndih ff[e t ]he CommonwJeasaliythls fotren mom orthean3 2d awyhsi alweai tbianfrigol mC hesterfield Couannty[d t c]ihotefRy i chmioCnnh de stCeorufiJneatylani ddlP amunkReeygJ 'ailla ,n"d th"aCth riDsotl.ii.snn.oa u tghoha tiv ses au[eondr] do epfrr ote(cEtCiNFoo2 n.0.51". ) Thefascedt osn oamto utnaot" plsatiant oeftmh een tsc hloaiwmti htnahg[te p laiinst iff] entitrtoel leiFdee Rf.d.C". i Pvr.8o (.)a ()Wh2.i lKel eliisnse tvs"e craauolsaf ec st"an i do n contiecnno dnsc,lfa usshoitryoh tnah,tDe e fenadrlaein attbhosli ehm ed, oneos"t e xpwlhayi n heb elieeavdceehsf einlsdi aatnbhotli "eman dd oneos"t r efertehsnepc eecn iufimcb ered factual paragraphs in the body of the particularized amended complaint that support that assertion.” (ECF No. 19, at 4.) Pursuant to Federal Rule 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Zaczek v. Fauquier Cty.,

, 1075 n.16 (E.D. Va. 1991) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

(1962)) (explaining that a court may “‘act on its own initiative” with respect to dismissals under Federal Rule 41(b)). Further, when a plaintiff is granted authorization to proceed in forma pauperis, the court is obligated, pursuant to

(e)(2), to screen the operative complaint to determine, among other things, whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2) (explaining that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”). A complaint should survive only when a plaintiff has set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The Court has reviewed Klein’s Third Amended Complaint pursuant to this statutory screening obligation and finds that the Third Amended Complaint, in its current form, fails to state a plausible claim for relief against the Defendants. Accordingly, Klein’s Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 20.) An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. It is SO ORDERED.

Date: OTM 1/20zz / hi Richmond, Virginia M. Hannah Ldugk' United States District Judge