Opinion
CA 06-534 ML.
April 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Charbonea's and Desjarlais's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer. The Motion is filed pursuant to R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(d). Defendants Charbonea and Desjarlais argue that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because it violates Rule 8(c)(2) and 8(e)(1). Plaintiff has filed an objection. Having read Plaintiff's complaint and considered the arguments made in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff's complaint names 30 defendants and one Jane Doe. The complaint lists 27 separate counts, including a claim for "trial by jury against all defendants on all counts." The entire complaint is 78 pages long. Pages 10-77 contain a hodge-podge of unnumbered paragraphs, most of which contain conclusory allegations against various of the named defendants. For example, at page 26, Plaintiff claims that "law enforcement, among others are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to murder plaintiff in connection with Showa Denko K.K."
This Court is mindful of its obligation to accord a pro se litigant some latitude when reviewing pleadings. That latitude, however, is not without limitation. Where, as here, the "complaint" so offends the letter and spirt of the Federal Rules, the Court must grant Defendants some relief. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how any of the named Defendants could file any form of a meaningful answer to Plaintiff's complaint in its present form.
The Court, therefore, grants the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling her complaint. Plaintiff is reminded of the requirements of R.C.P. 8 and 10, should she choose to file a new complaint.
SO ORDERED: