Laurack D. Bray v. Department of Justice U.S. et al

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Cormac J. Carney, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM: Mr. Bray's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (See document for details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rla)

1
2
3
4

JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12

LAURACK D. BRAY,

13

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15
16

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: CV 12-05704-CJC(RZ)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM

21
22

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND1

23
24

On August 14, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff Laurack D. Bray’s ex parte

25

application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and for an order to show

26

cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. (Dkt. No. 16.) In doing so,

27
28

1

A more complete recitation of the factual background can be found in the Court’s August 14, 2012
Order. (See Dkt. No. 16.)
-1-

1

the Court also ordered Mr. Bray to show cause why his Complaint should not be

2

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Id.) Rather than responding directly to

3

the Court’s Order, Mr. Bray filed a response asserting that this Court lacked jurisdiction

4

to rule on his ex parte application due to his filing of a writ of mandamus with the Ninth

5

Circuit. (Dkt. No. 17.) Such a procedural maneuver is of no consequence. For the

6

following reasons, Mr. Bray’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

7
8

II. ANALYSIS

9
10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short

11

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” To comply

12

with Rule 8, a plaintiff must plead “the elements of his or her claim, identifying the

13

transactions or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements of the prima facie

14

case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 8

15

requires that the complaint “say enough to give the defendant fair notice of what the

16

plaintiff’s claim[s] [are] and the grounds upon which [they] rest[].” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor

17

Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2507 (2007) (internal quotations omitted).

18

However, complaints containing allegations that merely “incorporate each preceding

19

paragraph, regardless of relevancy, are not permitted.” Destfino v. Kennedy, No. CV 08-

20

1269, 2009 WL 63566, *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2009). This practice, known as “shotgun

21

pleading,” violates Rule 8’s requirement of a short and plain statement. Id; see also

22

Strategic Income Fund v. Spear, Leeds, & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.

23

2002).

24
25

Mr. Bray’s Complaint fails to meet the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) to

26

provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

27

relief. Mr. Bray’s thirty-four page Complaint, with eight claims, against twenty-one

28

different defendants, is replete with allegations of racial discrimination, and other alleged
-2-

1

constitutional violations. But rather than being a short and plain statement of Mr. Bray’s

2

alleged injury, the Complaint is a “shotgun pleading” that primarily contains legal

3

conclusions. With so many allegations, leveled against so many defendants, Mr. Bray’s

4

Complaint makes it impossible to discern a cognizable claim.

5
6

When given the opportunity to correct the conclusory, confusing, and redundant

7

allegations in his Complaint, Mr. Bray instead chose to question this Court’s jurisdiction

8

to rule on his ex parte application and filed a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit.

9

Mr. Bray, however, never addressed the deficiencies in his Complaint despite the Court’s

10

order to do so.

11
12

III. CONCLUSION

13
14
15

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Bray’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

16
17
18

DATED:

September 26, 2012
__________________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-