Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-0096-M
November 14, 2002
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the District Court referred Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss," filed September 30, 2002, to the United States Magistrate Judge for a hearing, if necessary, and for the United States Magistrate Judge to submit to the Court proposed findings and recommendations for disposition of the motion. The conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on January 11, 2002. Plaintiff served Defendant with the Complaint in August 2002. On September 30, 2002, Defendant brought a motion seeking dismissal with prejudice on the grounds that the complaint (1) does not comply with FED. R. CIV. P.8 and (2) fails to state a claim as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). More than twenty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the dismissal motion or sought leave of Court to amend his complaint.
Standard of Review
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) requires that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). A court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). "This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs Complaint is deficient in all three of Rule 8(a)'s requirements. In fact, the face of the Complaint is blank. Plaintiff attached to the complaint a copy of a decision by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission based upon some Title VII complaints against Plaintiffs employer. Rule 8(e)(1) commands that "[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." The primary purpose of the Rule 8 provisions is to give the Defendant fair notice of the claims against him. See Jennings v. Emry, 910 F.2d 1434, 1436 (7th Cir. 1990) (a complaint "must be presented with clarity sufficient to avoid requiring a district court or opposing party to forever sift through its pages in search of' a valid claim). Neither this Court nor Defendant is required to search the exhibit to the Complaint to determine what claims, if any, Plaintiff is attempting to bring.
Defendant requests the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice. Defendant relies upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152 (1984). The Plaintiff, Brown, sent a right-to-sue letter to the District Court. The question in Brown was whether the filing of a right-to-sue letter constituted the commencement of an action for purposes of the statute of limitations. The United States Supreme Court held that the action was not commenced by the right-to-sue letter and dismissed the case with prejudice. Brown, 466 U.S. at 152. The Court notes that in Brown, the Court had told the plaintiff three times what she needed to do to preserve her claim, but she failed to act. Brown, 466 U.S. at 152. Brown is distinguishable from this case. The dismissal Defendant seeks is based upon a pleading defect, rather than the statute of limitations.
Defendant points out that Plaintiff is a frequent filer in this Court who should be keenly aware of Federal Rules' pleading requirements. The Court has ordered Plaintiff in other cases to file amended pleadings that comply with the federal rules. See, e.g., Bates v. US. Small Business Administration, No. 3:01-CV-1614 (N.D. Tex. filed Aug. 16, 2001) (supplemental complaint filed October 25, 2002); Bates v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:01-CV-1656 (N.D. Tex. filed Aug. 23, 2001) (ordering Plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with Rule 8(a)); Bates v. US. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3 :01-CV-2012 (N.D. Tex. filed October 9, 2001) (dismissed March 28, 2002 for failure to effect service; motion to reopen denied Oct. 30, 2002); Bates v. Dallas Police Dept., No. 3:02-CV-2227 (N.D. Tex. filed Oct. 15, 2002) (claim for violation of civil rights); Bates v. US. Small Business Administration, No. 3:02-CV-1656 (N.D. Tex. filed Oct. 21, 2002) (claim for violation of civil rights).
The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff should know better. Nevertheless, federal policy encourages courts to decide cases based upon the substantive rights involved rather than on pleading defects, whenever that is possible. See Tuley v. Heyd, 482 F.2d 590, 594 (5th Cir. 1973). For this reason, the Court should direct Plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with Rule 8. If he fails to comply, then dismissal with prejudice would be warranted.
With respect to Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the Court is unable to determine that it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Because this Court presently is unable to ascertain the nature or the specific content of Plaintiffs claims, the Court should deny without prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 8 should be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff should be given one, and only one, opportunity to replead his Complaint consistent with Rule 8. The amended complaint should be filed within twenty days of the District Court's order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within that period, or if Plaintiffs amended complaint fails to comply with the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 8, Plaintiffs action against Defendant should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The District Court should deny without prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.