Opinion
No. C4-97-107.
Filed June 17, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Crow Wing County, File No. C3-96-1335.
Thomas R. Louden, (Appellant Pro Se).
Hazel Schilb, (Appellant Pro Se).
Leonard J. Schweich, Askegaard Robinson, P.A., (for Respondent).
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Pro se appellants Thomas R. Louden and Hazel Schilb brought this action against respondents, the City of Brainerd, Minnesota, and a number of city officials. The district court interpreted respondents' motion for summary judgment as one for failure to state a claim under Minn.R.Civ.P. 12.02(e) and dismissed appellants' complaint without prejudice. This appeal followed. Because the complaint fails to state any valid claims, we affirm.
DECISION
Pro se litigants generally are held to the same rules and standards as attorneys. See Davis v. Danielson , 558 N.W.2d 286, 287 (Minn.App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 1997).
In reviewing a case dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the complaint must be liberally construed and will be sufficient if it fairly gives notice of a claim and permits the application of the doctrine of res judicata. See Royal Realty Co. v. Levin , 244 Minn. 288, 292, 69 N.W.2d 667, 671 (1955); see also Northern States Power Co. v. Franklin , 265 Minn. 391, 394, 122 N.W.2d 26, 29 (1963) (pleading must give fair notice to adverse party of incident giving rise to suit with sufficient clarity to disclose pleader's theory upon which claim for relief based).
The complaint in this case is vague and unintelligible. While it names as defendants the city and a number of city officials, it fails to give the defendants sufficient notice by specifying how and why each of them is responsible for any wrongdoing.
With respect to appellant Louden, the complaint appears to allege that the city's planned spraying of mosquito pesticides forced him to vacate his property because such spraying would aggravate an injury Louden had sustained in the military. These facts, even assuming Louden could prove them, fail to support any legal theory that would entitle him to relief.
With respect to appellant Schilb, the complaint alleges that city officials "took it upon themselves to break or disregard contracts between [Schilb] and Skinaway family representing Sandy Lake Reservation * * * to preserve her historic home" following a chimney fire. The Skinaway family is not a named party in this action, and the complaint otherwise fails to allege any type of contract or tort claim against any named defendant. The complaint fails to contain specific facts that might entitle Schilb to any relief.
The district court did not err in dismissing appellants' complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.