Fisher et al v. Rodriquez et al

Filing 22

ORDER: Pursuant to the attached order, the Court sua sponte directs Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before 01/26/17 that comports with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/05/2017. (Lee, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROBERT FISHER, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CECILE RODRIGUEZ, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-1763 (VLB)

January 5, 2017

RULING AND ORDER
This action was commenced on October 26, 2016, by the Plaintiffs Robert
Fisher and Jessie Fisher. On November 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a 29-page
Amended Complaint accompanied by 22 exhibits totaling 216 pages. The
Amended Complaint lists 17 defendants including private legal entities, private
citizens in their individual and official capacities, and judges.
The Amended Complaint lists the following “claims” without factual
content: “Claim of Ownership,” “Wrongful Assignment,” “No Trust,” “No Splitting
the Note,” the “Original Note,” and “Legal Standing.” After the “Legal Standing”
claim, the Amended Complaint simply lists the following terms, which appear to
be headnotes: “375 False Claims Act, 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC
881, 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability, 150 Recovery of Overpayment, 410
Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment, Slander, Personal Injury, 820 Copyrights,
430 Banks and Banking, 450 Commerce, 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability, 470
Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans), 345 SOCIAL SECURITY, Corrupt
Organizations, 710 Fair Labor Standards, 370 Other Fraud Act, 160 Stockholders’
Suits, 371 Truth in Lending, 850 Securities/Commodities, 190 Other Contract

Product Liability, 380 Other Personal Relations, 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange, 195
Contract Product Liability, 360 Other Personal Property Damage, 890 Other
Statutory Actions, 196 Franchise Injury, 385 Property Damage, 751 Family and
Medical Leave, 891 Agricultural Acts, 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave
Act, 893 Environmental Matters, Medical Malpractice, 790 Other Labor Litigation,
895 Freedom of Information, REAL PROPERTY, CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER
PETITIONS, 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act, 210 Land
Condemnation, 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus, Income Security Act, 870
Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff), 896 Arbitration, 220 Foreclosure, 899 Administrative
Procedure, 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment, 442 Employment, 240 Torts to Land, 443
Housing, Sentence, 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision, 245 Tort Product Liability
Accommodations, 950 Constitutionality of (sic), 290 All Other Real Property, 550
Civil Rights Actions, False Claims Act, Fraud upon the court, Color of law, Aiding
and abetting, Color of law, Violation of canon law, monopoly.” The Amended
Complaint then lists conclusory and hypothetical statements, legal principles and
citations and acts and omissions which are not attributed to anyone. The
Amended Complaint asserts prolix, factually unsupported, factually unattributed,
and frivolous claims. Finally, the Amended Complaint obliquely references an
underlying legal proceeding, raising questions of comity, abstention, res judicata,
exhaustion, and immunity.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed allegations are not

required, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). A complaint that includes only “‘labels and conclusions,’ ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action’ or ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of
‘further factual enhancement,’” does not meet the facial plausibility standard. Id.
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)). Although
courts still have an obligation to interpret “a pro se complaint liberally,” the
complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the standard of
facial plausibility. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted).
The Amended Complaint does not comply with the applicable pleading
standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Based on the deficiencies noted above, this
Court has authority to dismiss the complaint. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Street
Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding district courts may
dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte even when plaintiff has paid required
filing fee); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (holding that an in forma
pauperis complaint is frivolous where it lacks arguable basis either in law or in
fact; term “frivolous” in statute authorizing sua sponte dismissal of frivolous in
forma pauperis complaints embraces not only inarguable legal conclusion but
also fanciful factual allegation). However, the Court should exercise restraint,

and err on the side of resolving cases on the merits where possible. See
Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 364.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure essentially requires that each
claim against each Defendant must be set forth in separate counts. Specifically,
each legal theory must be set out in a separate count and each count must
contain a clear and concise statement of the facts which form the basis of the
claim and entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. Each fact should be set forth in
a separate numbered paragraph. The claims against each Defendant must be set
forth in a separate count. For example, if there are two breach of contract claims
asserted against two defendants, the complaint must contain two counts for
breach of contract, one against each defendant. Each count must specify the
facts satisfying each of the elements of the claim. Each fact in each count must
be in a separate numbered paragraph. This standard is not a mere formality. The
object is of the rule is to give each Defendant fair notice of the nature of each
claim asserted against them and the facts supporting such claim. Adherence to
this standard is required to achieve this objective.
Accordingly, the Court directs the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended
Complaint within 21 days of the date of this order in adherence with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the Court has detained the deficiencies of
the Amended Complaint and explained the pleading standard and provided an
illustration of its application, the case will be dismissed if the Plaintiff fails to file
a complaint which complies with Rule 8 on or before January 26, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
________/s/______________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: January 5, 2017