Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-8221
February 26, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Donald Smith, a.k.a Donald Muhammad El Ali, ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se complaint in this court on November 12, 2002. Defendants Altegra Credit Company and its attorney Louis P. Vitti ("Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss Presenting Defense of Failure To State A Claim, Lack Of Service Of Process, and Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, as well as a Motion for a More Definite Statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b), and a Motion to Strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(f). (Docket No. 5). Plaintiff has filed a number of other documents. These include a document entitled "Motion to Amend Original Claim, Move to Have Sale Set A Aside, And For Default Judgment Due to Defendants' Refusal to Respond to Material Facts" (Docket No. 6), Application For Entry Of Default (Docket No. 8). and Plaintiff's Motion Of Removal Pursuant to 28USC § 1441. Stay Unit Of Possession (Doc. No 10). These documents include attachments which have titles such as "Judicial Banking Fraud Exposed;" "Public Notice of Treason" and "Debt Demand to Cease and Desist Collection Activities Prior to Validation of Purported".
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Plaintiff's pleadings and attachments are incomprehensible. It appears that Plaintiff may have some grievance with Altegra Credit Company and that Plaintiff would like this Court to get involved. It also appears that this grievance has been dealt with in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
We recognize that courts grant pro se plaintiffs leeway when considering their pleadings, holding pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Cole v. Commonwealth Federal, Civ. A. No. 94-6099, 1994 WL 618464 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 8, 1994) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)). "However, if the pro se complaint is so confusing or unintelligible that no party could possibly understand or reply to it, the court should dismiss the case for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)." Id.
In this case, Plaintiff's statements in the complaint and the subsequent filings are incomprehensible. We can not expect Defendants to respond to them in any reasonable manner. Under the circumstances, we must dismiss Plaintiff's original complaint and all subsequent filings as frivolous.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2003, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Motion for a More Definite Statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b), and Motion to Strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(f) (Docket No. 5), Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Original Claim, Move to Have Sale Set A Aside, and for Default Judgment Due to Defendants' Refusal to Respond to Material Facts" (Docket No. 6), and Plaintiff's Application for an entry of default (Docket No. 8), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and
2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.