Ross v. SFGH et al

Filing 50

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/27/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LEONARD D. ROSS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-04783 JSW

v.
ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

SFGH, ET AL,
Defendants.
/

14
15

On November 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte issued a Report and

16

Recommendation, in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave

17

to amend. On January 8, 2014, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Laporte’s Report and

18

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The Court instructed Plaintiff to file an

19

amended complaint by no later than February 7, 2014, and cautioned that failure to file an

20

amended complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal

21

jurisdictional requirements would result in dismissal of this action.

22

The Court has received numerous submissions from Plaintiff, including an amended

23

complaint filed on February 4, 2014. However, none of Plaintiff’s submissions sets out a claim

24

falling under federal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required

25

to dismiss an action that is frivolous or fails to state a claim.

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80.
A complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” McHenry 84 F.3d

13

at 1179. Even if the factual elements of the cause of action are present, but are scattered

14

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

15

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

16

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s amended complaints because, after many efforts and

17

notwithstanding his efforts to set forth more than conclusory allegations, he has failed to plead a

18

short and plain statement of his claims.

19
20

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The Court shall enter a
separate judgment, and the Clerk shall close this file.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
LEONARD D. ROSS,

Case Number: CV13-04783 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.
8
SFGH ET AL 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 June 27, 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 Leonard D. Ross
2451 Sacramento Street, Apt. 908
18 San Francisco, CA 94115
19 Dated: June 27, 2014
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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