Diop v. County of Marin et al

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/9/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RAMA DIOP,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 12-06332 JSW

v.

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

COUNTY OF MARIN, ET AL.
Defendants.
/

14
15

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Third Amended

16

Complaint. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the Court granted her motion to proceed in forma

17

pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to dismiss an action

18

that is frivolous or fails to state a claim.

19

On August 16, 2013, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s

20

First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, ordered that this matter be transferred to

21

the San Francisco division, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September

22

18, 2013. The matter was then reassigned to this Court.

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”) requires plaintiffs to “plead a short and

24

plain statement of the elements of his or her claim.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d

25

837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 8 requires each allegation to be “simple, concise, and direct.”

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Where the allegations in a complaint are “argumentative, prolix, replete

27

with redundancy and largely irrelevant,” the complaint is properly dismissed for failure to

28

comply with Rule 8(a). McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996); see

1

also Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming

2

dismissal of complaint that was “ ‘verbose, confusing and almost entirely conclusory’ ”).

3

“Something labeled a complaint but ... prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity,

4

conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the

5

essential functions of a complaint,” and “impose[s] unfair burdens on litigants and judges.”

6

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80.

7

A complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant

8

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with

9

Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” McHenry 84 F.3d
at 1179. Even if the factual elements of the cause of action are present, but are scattered

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,”

12

dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8 is proper. Id. at 1178.

13

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint because, notwithstanding

14

her efforts to set forth more than conclusory allegations, she failed to plead a short and plain

15

statement of her claims. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint fares no better. Once again,

16

although Plaintiff includes allegations that various judges, commissioners and referees violated

17

her rights, issued unfavorable decisions, and conspired against her, it is impossible for the Court

18

to discern whether it has jurisdiction over many of these claims or whether Plaintiff’s claims

19

would be barred based on doctrines of immunity.

20

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES, WITH PREJUDICE, the Third Amended

21

Complaint. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177, 1178-79. The Court shall enter a separate

22

judgment, and the Clerk shall close this file.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: April 9, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
RAMA DIOP,

Case Number: CV12-06332 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.
8
COUNTY OF MARINE et al,
9
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
12 District Court, Northern District of California.
13 That on April 9, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
14 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
15
16
17 Rama Diop
527 Hillside Avenue
18 Mill Valley, CA 94941
19 Dated: April 9, 2014
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk