OPINION
Janet Francis appeals pro se from the order of the District Court refusing to reopen this case after previously having dismissed the complaint without prejudice. For the following reasons, we will vacate and remand for further proceedings.
*473I.
The complaint at issue does not contain specific factual averments, but, from Francis’s filing in this Court, it appears that Janet and Annette Francis are sisters and that the minor plaintiffs are Annette’s children. Plaintiffs submitted pro se a complaint against various New Jersey state agencies and employees, together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiffs’ complaint accuses defendants, in conclusory fashion, of numerous legal violations. Among other things, it refers to an “illegal adoption” and claims that defendants violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. By order entered August 22, 2007, and without ruling on the IFP motion, the District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to conform to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order dismissed the complaint without prejudice, but stated that “this matter is hereby closed” and did not expressly provide plaintiffs with leave to amend. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to reopen their case on the grounds discussed below. By order entered November 8, 2007, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion and again deemed the matter “closed.” Francis appealed, then filed in this Court a “motion for summary judgment,” which sets forth the factual basis for her claims.1
il.
We agree with the District Court that plaintiffs’ complaint was deficient even under the liberal pleading standards embodied in Rule 8. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008) (explaining that Rule 8 “ ‘requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests’ ”) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). The District Court, however, should expressly have provided plaintiffs a further opportunity to conform to those standards. Before dismissing a pro se complaint, district courts should “ ‘expressly state, where appropriate, that the plaintiff has leave to amend within a specified period of time.’ ” Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116 (3d Cir.2000) (citation omitted). One appropriate circumstance is where the complaint suffers from a “ ‘lack of factual specificity.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, the District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for inadequate specificity, but ordered the matter “closed” without expressly allowing leave to amend.2
This error was compounded by the procedural posture in which the District *474Court dismissed the complaint — i.e., before a ruling on plaintiffs’ IFP motion. “When a complaint is accompanied by a motion to proceed [IFP], rather than by payment of a filing fee, the complaint is not docketed, and it is therefore not filed, until the motion has been granted.” Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 429 n. 1 (3d Cir.1990). Thus, technically speaking, plaintiffs’ complaint was not yet subject to dismissal. We sympathize with the District Court’s desire to weed out meritless complaints, but such procedural shortcuts can be counterproductive. For example, we explained in Oatess that dismissing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) before service of process “interferes with the orderly process of the case” and “results in greater inefficiency” because “if an appeal is taken the case shuttles between the district and appellate courts.” See id. at 431.
Similar problems arose here. In their motion to reopen, plaintiffs focused on their outstanding IFP motion and the absence of service of process.3 If the District Court had expressly granted leave to amend, plaintiffs might simply have amended their complaint instead of moving to reopen. As it happened, however, the District Court denied reopening, Francis appealed, and she now has filed in this Court a document setting forth the basis of her claims in a manner that appears to satisfy Rule 8. We express no opinion on the merits of those claims, but note that they might be read to state, inter alia, a procedural or substantive due process claim.4
Accordingly, we will vacate and remand. On remand, the District Court is directed to rule on Francis’s IFP motion. If the District Court grants leave to proceed IFP, it shall then afford Francis a specific period of time, such as thirty days, within which to file an amended complaint. If she files an amended complaint, the District Court shall proceed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Francis’s “motion for summary judgment,” to the extent that it seeks substantive relief in this Court, is denied.