In short, the Court finds that the Complaint is "so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Owens v. Shields, 34 F. App'x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Jemmot v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 660 F. App'x 62, 65 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of pro se complaint that relied on vague "allus[ions] to numerous non-chronological and unconnected events spanning a number of years and interspersed with seemingly irrelevant information"). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a plausible claim on which relief can be granted.

The Court is not required to “comb the record” in search of evidence in support of Plaintiff's position. Jackson v. Onondaga Cnty., 549 F.Supp.2d 204, 214 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (citation omitted); see Jemmott v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 15-3510-cv, 2016 WL 4719056, at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2016) (upholding dismissal under Rule 8(a) because the plaintiff “did not set forth a statement or summary of the facts and almost exclusively relied on attached documents, many of which were unidentified and alluded to numerous non-chronological and unconnected events spanning a number of years and interspersed with seemingly irrelevant information”); compare with Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F.3d 138, 141 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding that “despite [its] shortcomings, the amended complaint substantially complies with Rule 8” because it “identifies discrete defendants and the actions taken by these defendants that purportedly violated Harnage's Eighth Amendment rights.

Dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 is "usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Jemmott v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 660 F. App'x 62, 63, 65 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint for Rule 8 because the complaint did not set out a summary of facts and relied on attached documents).

As a result, pursuant to Rule 8(a), the Court dismisses all of Plaintiff's claims. See Jemmott v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 15-3510-cv, 2016 WL 4719056, at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2016) (upholding dismissal under Rule 8(a) because the plaintiff "did not set forth a statement or summary of the facts and almost exclusively relied on attached documents, many of which were unidentified and alluded to numerous non-chronological and unconnected events spanning a number of years and interspersed with seemingly irrelevant information"); O'Neil v. Ponzi, 394 F. App'x 795, 796 (2d Cir. 2010) (upholding a dismissal under Rule 8(a) because "[the plaintiff] indulge[d] in a prolix and unintelligible conspiracy theory novel which fail[ed] to allege that [the] defendants' conduct was the legal, much less the logical, cause of her injury"); Jones v. Nat'l Commc'ns & Surveillance Networks, 266 F. App'x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding the dismissal of a "single-spaced 58-page complaint with 87 additional pages of attachments, alleging over twenty separate causes of action against more than 40 defendants" proper under Rule 8(a)). Cf. Shomo v. State of N.Y., 374 F. App'x 180, 183 (2d Ci