David Wynn-Miller et al v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION: "...the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action for failure to comply with Rule 8. Further, the dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE because the Court FINDS, based on the content of the Complaint as well as Plaintiff David-Wynn Mil ler's numerous other filings in this district court,1 that he has filed this action in bad faith and that granting leave to amend would be futile..." Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on February 21, 2012. (bbb, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SHANE M. BOSQUE; COLETTE T.
BOSQUE; DAVID-WYNN MILLER,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, )
)
ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 11-00649 LEK-BMK

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
On October 24, 2011, pro se Plaintiffs Shane M. Bosque,
Colette T. Bosque, and David-Wynn Miller (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Argent
Mortgage Company, LLC, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and Mortgage
Electronic Registration System, Incorporation (collectively
“Defendants”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 mandates that a
complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”
P. 8(a)(2).
and direct.”

Fed. R. Civ.

Further, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

The court may dismiss a

complaint for failure to satisfy Rule 8 if it is so confusing
that its “‘true substance, if any, is well disguised.’”

Hearns

v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir.
2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431

(9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180
(9th Cir. 1996) (“Something labeled a complaint but written more
as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without
simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are
suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions
of a complaint.”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d
671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with
rules 8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice[.]”).
Put slightly differently, a complaint may be dismissed
for failure to comply with Rule 8 where it fails to provide the
defendants fair notice of the wrongs they have allegedly
committed.

See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178–80 (affirming dismissal

of complaint where “one cannot determine from the complaint who
is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough
detail to guide discovery”); cf. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp.
Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1105 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that
dismissal under Rule 8 was in error where “the complaint
provide[d] fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed by
defendants and [did] not qualify as overly verbose, confusing, or
rambling”).

Rule 8 requires more than “the-defendant-unlawfully-

harmed-me accusation[s].”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

1949 (2009) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs are appearing pro se; consequently, the
Court liberally construes their pleadings.

2

Eldridge v. Block,

832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The Supreme Court has
instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the
‘inartful pleading’ of pro se litigants.” (citing Boag v.
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)).

Even

liberally construed, however, the purported allegations in the
Complaint are completely incoherent and utterly fail to state any
kind of claim against any Defendant that is remotely plausible on
its face.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is completely nonsensical and has
no apparent relationship to any claim for judicial relief.

It

does not contain any coherent or complete sentences, let alone
identify any specific claims that Plaintiffs are advancing or
factual allegations they are making.

Indeed, the Court cannot

make out a single allegation from the Complaint.

The Complaint

is essentially comprised of a random collection of unintelligible
words, symbols, and initials laid out in no apparent order.

This

incoherent text cannot be said to provide Defendants fair notice
of the wrongs they have allegedly committed.

See Simmons v.

Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Gillibeau, 417
F.2d at 431 (stating that dismissal is appropriate where the
complaint is so confused, ambiguous, or unintelligible that its
true substance is well disguised)).
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this action for
failure to comply with Rule 8.

Further, the dismissal is WITH

3

PREJUDICE because the Court FINDS, based on the content of the
Complaint as well as Plaintiff David-Wynn Miller’s numerous other
filings in this district court,1 that he has filed this action in
bad faith and that granting leave to amend would be futile.

See

W. Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir.
1991) (grounds for denying amendment include bad faith and
futility of the amendment); Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San
Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that
leave to amend is properly denied if amendment would be futile);
cf. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995)
(requiring leave to amend for pro se litigants “[u]nless it is
absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, February 21, 2012.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

MILLER ET AL. v. ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.; CIVIL NO.
11-00649 LEK-BMK; ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

1

David-Wynn Miller, along with other plaintiffs, also
recently filed similar nonsensical complaints in Lacabanne, et
al. v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al., CV 12-00060 SOM-BMK; Paet, et
al. v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, et al., CV 12-00048 SOM-BMK;
Kaihana, et al. v. District Court of the First Circuit, Waianae,
et al., CV 12-00041 HG-BMK; Chau, et al. v. BNC Mortgage, Inc.,
et al., CV 11-00656 SOM-BMK; and Miller, et al. v. Argent
Mortgage Company, LLC, et al., CV 11-00649 LEK-BMK.
4