Opinion
No. C 02-1349 SI
November 26, 2002
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's complaint has been dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff Leonard Ross.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
On November 25, 2002 the Court heard arguments on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss for the reasons set forth below.BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2002 plaintiff filed a complaint against Marjorie A. Slabach and "Does 1-10,000." On July 31, 2002 the Court granted defendant's motion for a more definite statement and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The Court wrote:
First, the complaint is difficult to decipher because the type is blurry and faded. Further, Ross appears to have interspersed bits of an official form without including any facts specifically related to his circumstances. Second, based on the legible portions of the complaint, Ross does not state a valid claim or set forth a basis for federal juridiction. Third, Ross attaches a discrimination claim (see Compl., Ex. A) he filed with the EEOC against the City and County of San Francisco but he fails to demonstrate any connection between the EEOC claim and his current complaints.
Order at 4.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Ross to file an EEOC "Right-to-Sue" letter and an amended complaint. The Court ordered that the amended complaint provide "a statement of the relevant facts, state at least one cause of action, and set forth grounds for federal jurisdiction." Order at 4. Plaintiff has not provided any letter from the EEOC for this case, but has filed a "Right-to-Sue" letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, relating to a claim by Ross against the City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiff has also filed an amended complaint. Marjorie A. Slabach remains the only named defendant.
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, § 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Thus, a complaint that is replete with detail but that fails to concisely and clearly identify "whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996). Two provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure address the problem posed by a vague or confusing complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 provides that a complaint "shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (e) (1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that "[i]f a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) (1999). It is within a district court's discretion to fashion a remedy for violation of Rules 8 and 12, which may include ordering amendment of the complaint, dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend, or dismissal with prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (1999);McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177; Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (1981).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's amended complaint is typed and legible. Plaintiff has, however, still failed to state a claim. There is not a single assertion of fact in the amended complaint regarding the only named defendant in this case, Marjorie A. Slabach. The amended complaint does contain an allegation, also lacking any factual foundation, of malicious prosecution against an individual named "Moss," but otherwise undescribed in the complaint. See Am. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff recounts the frustration he experienced while trying to apply for a legal assistant position, but does not state a claim against any party to this case. See id. The remainder of plaintiffs amended complaint is otherwise filed with statutory references that are unconnected to factual allegations of any kind.
At the hearing on this motion, Mr. Ross provided additional information relating to his grievances. It appears that he seeks this Court's intervention related to certain San Francisco Superior Court/Family Court orders, which prevent him from having unsupervised visitation with his children despite a stipulation reached by the parties with a mediator. He also described himself as a "frustrated litigant," and displayed for the Court a March, 2002 prefiling review order from the San Francisco Superior Court which suggests that Mr. Ross has been found to be a vexatious litigant in accordance with state law. The additional information provided by Mr. Ross underscores this Court's conviction that there is no federal jurisdiction over the claims he seeks to bring. Mr. Ross does not point to, nor has this Court found, any source of federal jurisdiction over disputes concerning state law family court orders. Moreover, State Court judges, including Commissioners, have absolute judicial immunity for actions performed in their judicial capacity. The DFEH Right-to-Sue letter, if it relates to Mr. Ross' current claims, would allow only "a private lawsuit in State court."
Because the amended complaint does not give defendant fair notice of alleged wrongdoing, defendant cannot be required to answer. Because no federal jurisdiction appears to exist in this matter, leave to amend again would be futile. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, that is, without leave to amend, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 12(b)(6), is GRANTED.