Patrick Brooks v. Bank of New York Mellon et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II;Plaintiffs complaint violates the short and plain requirement of Rule 8, and is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff is advised of Pro Se Clinc available located in the US Courthouse. (lc). Modified on 8/24/2012 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15

PATRICK BROOKS,

16
17
18
19

v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-7018-ODW(MANx)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.,
Defendants.

20

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s complaint. Upon review, the Court finds

21

that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and

22

should be dismissed.

23

Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain a short and plain statement of a

24

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216

25

F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff must plead a short and plain statement of the

26

elements of his claim, “identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the

27

claim and the elements of a prima facie case.” Id. Further, Plaintiff must eliminate all

28

preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, griping,

1

vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like

2

from his complaint. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996). The

3

Court should be able to read and understand Plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. Id. at

4

1177.

5

Although the Court is required to give pro se plaintiffs some leniency in terms

6

of procedure, the complaint must still be adequately plead. See Eldridge v. Block, 832

7

F.2d 1132, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 1987). A complaint that is unintelligible serves no

8

purpose and does more harm than good.

9

defendant, and the court—to expend resources just trying to decipher the prose.

And it requires all parties—plaintiff,

10

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is 29 pages long (not including exhibits). It alleges

11

that the four Defendants committed a myriad of offenses, and states 16 causes of

12

action relating to unlawful lending and mortgage business practices.

13

complaint contains nothing but boilerplate allegations relating to speculative wrongful

14

acts by the mortgage and financial industries. The complaint contains only legal

15

conclusions and lacks any facts alleging what each Defendant has specifically done to

16

harm Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff’s legal theories presented in his complaint

17

barely make sense. In total, Plaintiff’s complaint violates the “short and plain”

18

requirement of Rule 8, and is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

19

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days. Failure to do so will result in

20

dismissal of this action.

But the

21

Finally, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff is the author of his complaint—

22

it appears Plaintiff acquired a template (perhaps for a fee) and modified it to suit his

23

needs. The template is plain awful, and the Court discourages this practice. Instead,

24

Plaintiff is advised that a Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States

25

Courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street, Room 525, Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California

26

90012. The clinic is open for appointments on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at

27

9:30 a.m. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers free, on-site information and guidance to

28

individuals who are representing themselves in federal civil actions.

2

Plaintiff is

1

encouraged to visit the clinic, prior to filing his amended complaint, for advice

2

concerning his case.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

August 24, 2012

5
6
7

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3