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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?