Brown v. Katz et al

Filing 86

ORDER DISMISING COMPLAINT without prejudice to re-filing on or before 12/6/2018. The Complaint fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See attached Memorandum of Decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/15/2018. (Mattessich, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ROSEMARY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOETTE KATZ, CINDY
BUTTERFIELD, NICHOLAS
HERMES, EILEEN MEEHAN,
RAYMOND BAILEY, CAROLYN
KOZAK, SANDRA FAE BROWNBREWTON, and STATE OF
CONNECTICUT,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:18-CV-279 (VLB)

November 15, 2018

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DKT. 84]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, in which she
seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of her rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Family and Medical Leave act,
29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.
[Dkt. 84]. At a discovery status conference on November 5, 2018, the Court
directed Plaintiff to re-file her first Amended Complaint, providing guidance on
how to conform the Amended Complaint to Rule 8. [Dkt. 83]. Plaintiff then filed
this Second Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, the Second
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Rule 8 provides that a complaint “shall contain . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). This pleading standard requires that a complaint give the defendant
“fair notice” of the claim and the grounds on which the claim rests. Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[U]nnecessary prolixity in a pleading
places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it
because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.”
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting 5 C. WRIGHT & A.
MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1281, at 365 (1969)). “When a
complaint fails to comply with these requirements, the district court has the
power, on motion or sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint or to strike such parts
as are redundant or immaterial.” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d. Cir.
1995).
The Second Amendment Complaint is not a “short and plain statement of
the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It adds several defendants to the action and
contains a lengthy detailed chronology and legal conclusions followed by claims
without specifying the facts constituting the elements of the claims, leaving the
Court and the defendants to speculate the asserted factual bases. Plaintiff has
been afforded several opportunities to file a proper complaint and the Court has
previously explained why previous complaints have failed to comply with Rule 8.
Therefore, dismissal with leave to amend is the appropriate remedy. This circuit
has upheld that remedy in similar circumstances, such as when a plaintiff in a
civil rights action filed an amended complaint that “span[ned] 15 single-spaced
pages and . . . contain[ed] a surfeit of detail.” Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 43. More
recently, in a case against the New York Department of Education, the Second
Circuit upheld a dismissal when the District Court warned a plaintiff that his
complaint did not comply with Rule 8 and provided guidance on how the

complaint could become compliant, then Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
“was more prolix and confusing than the previous one.” Celli v. Cole, 699 Fed.
Appx. 88, 89 (2d. Cir. 2017) (summary order).
THEREFORE, the Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED
without prejudice. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a complaint which conforms to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, setting forth disparately for each defendant a legally cognizable
claim followed by the factual allegations constituting the elements for each claim
against each defendant. Failure to file a proper complaint within 21 days of the
date of this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED
__________/s/____________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: November 15, 2018