Donald v. Northern Illinois Publishing

Full title: Donald vs. Northern Illinois Publishing

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date published: Dec 1, 2003

03 C 50143 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2003)

Opinion

03 C 50143

December 1, 2003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP REINHARD, District Judge

Plaintiff, Sharon M. Donald, filed a pro se complaint. Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement because they apparently could not discern the nature of the claims being brought against them. This is understandable as the original complaint is incomprehensible. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the motion for a more definite statement was denied as moot. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Rule 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Vicom. Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services. Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir. 1994). Under Rule 8, a complaint must be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and, if so, what it is, Vicom. Inc., 20 F.3d at 775. A complaint that is prolix and confusing makes it difficult for the defendant to file a responsive pleading and makes it difficult for the trial court to conduct orderly litigation. Vicom. Inc., 20 F.3d at 776. Thus, courts should not allow a plaintiff to plead by means of obfuscation. Vicom. Inc., 20 F, 3d at 776. A court may dismiss a complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8(a)(2).Caremark. Inc. v. Coram Healthcare Corp., 113 F.3d 645, 649 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1997). A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where a plaintiff continues to violate Rule 8(a)(2) after having amended his complaint.Vicom. Inc., 20 F.3d at 776.

Here, while defendants have made a valiant effort to discern the nature of the claims alleged in plaintiffs amended complaint in an attempt to address them via a motion to dismiss, they have not succeeded. Nor can this court glean from the amended complaint any comprehensible claim, let alone any federal cause of action. Thus, the court grants the motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, albeit on a different basis, and dismisses this cause in its entirety.