Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-1501-L
September 5, 2001
ORDER
Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer, filed August 10, 2001. This action was originally filed in the 191st Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, on July 11, 2001, with a supplement to the petition filed on July 18, 2001. Defendants removed to this court on August 3, 2001. Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of the complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), 8(e)(1), and 12(b)(6), for Plaintiff's failure to present a short and plaint statement of her claims showing that she is entitled to relief. In the alternative, Defendants request that the action be transferred to the Honorable Joe A. Fish. They also request that a monetary sanction be imposed on Plaintiff for knowingly filing a deficient pleading. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The court has reviewed the petition and supplemental petition filed by Plaintiff and agrees that the complaint, even when construed liberally, is virtually incomprehensible and does not meet the standards required by Rules 8 and 12(b). The court further notes that the complaint is essentially identical to one filed on March 12, 2001 in the 116th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, removed to federal court, and dismissed without prejudice. Lewis v. Fossil Partners, L.P., Civ. Act. No. 3:01-CV-0689-G (" Lewis I ") (order of May 29, 2001). In Lewis I, Plaintiff also failed to respond to a motion to dismiss, and the court ordered her, on May 8, 2001, to file a short and plain statement of her claim showing that she is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment. Her response to the court's order still failed to meet the standards imposed by the Rules, and the court then entered an order dismissing Lewis I without prejudice.
The court concludes from the foregoing that immediate dismissal of this action is appropriate, as Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated (in Lewis I, her response to that court's order of May 8, 2001, and now this action) an inability to conform with the requirements of the Rules. The court further concludes that dismissal without prejudice would be futile, because Plaintiff would merely refile the same deficient pleading. The court therefore grants Defendants' motion and dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendants' request that the case be transferred is therefore rendered moot. Judgment will issue by separate document, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
Plaintiff's complaint facially appears to violate Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, as unwarranted by existing law, likely to lack evidentiary support, and presented for an improper purpose. Accordingly, sanctions are appropriate "to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." The court is reluctant to impose monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 against pro se parties, as their relative lack of understanding of legal requirements justifies holding them to a lower standard than that for a licensed attorney. The court concludes, however, that Plaintiff's actions in Lewis I and this case demonstrate not only that she cannot conform to the requirements of the Rules but also that she will continue this conduct unless she is deterred by sanctions. The court therefore directs Plaintiff to file a response by September 19, 2001 showing cause why the court should not impose monetary sanctions against her for violations of Rule 11.
Defendants requested the imposition of sanctions in their Motion to Dismiss. It is not clear, however, whether they complied with the requirements of Rule 11(c)(1)(A). The court therefore proceeds sua sponte under Rule 11(c)(1)(B).