Opinion
No. CV 12-549-PHX-FJM
04-03-2012
George L. Mothershed, Plaintiff, v. State of Oklahoma et al, Defendant.
ORDER
The court has before it plaintiff's renewed Motion to allow electronic filing by a pro se litigant. (Doc. 16). We denied the prior motion without prejudice to refiling upon the filing of an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Order of Mar. 19, 2012. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint with 102 pages and 41 footnotes. While this is an improvement over the original complaint, the amended complaint is not a short and plain statement of the claim. Instead, it is an historical document, covering plaintiff's relationship to the Oklahoma bar over the years. One can comply with the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) without violating Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Moreover, the complaint is so riddled with issues involving jurisdiction, venue, immunity, and the like that it is most unlikely that even a complaint that complied with the Rules would survive in this District. Allowing electronic filing would only facilitate litigation filed in the wrong forum.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED DISMISSING without prejudice the first amended complaint for violating Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. It is further ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's Motion to allow electronic filing. (Doc. 16).
We once again urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a local lawyer. We also urge him to file any second amended complaint in the proper district in Oklahoma, which is where this case is likely to be transferred should a viable claim ever be stated.
At all events, plaintiff shall have to and including April 20, 2012 to file a second amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
____________________________
Frederick J. Martone
United States District Judge