Rogers et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage of Hawaii, LLC

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE re: 1 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 1/14/2013. (afc) 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 will be served by first class mail on January 15, 2013.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JULIA LEE ROGERS and DAVIDWYNN MILLER,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE OF )
)
HAWAII, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 12-705 LEK-BMK

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
On December 28, 2012, pro se Plaintiffs Julia Lee
Rogers and David-Wynn Miller (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a
Complaint against Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage of Hawaii,
LLC (“Defendant”).

The Complaint is entirely nonsensical.

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[.]”).
Plaintiffs are appearing pro se; consequently, the
Court liberally construes their pleadings.

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.
As this Court has found on several previous occasions,
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

2

words, symbols, and initials laid out in no apparent order.

This

incoherent text cannot be said to provide Defendant fair notice
of the wrongs it has allegedly committed.

See Simmons v.

Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Gillibeau, 417
F.2d at 431).
Accordingly, 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 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”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the case is HEREBY
DISMISSED.

1

David-Wynn Miller has filed several nonsensical complaints
before this Court, including inter alia, Miller, et al. v. BAC
Home Loan Servicing, LP, et al., CV 11-00648 LEK-BMK and Miller,
et al. v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, et al., CV 11-00649 LEKBMK.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 14, 2013.

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

JULIA LEE ROGERS, ET AL. V. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, LLC; CIVIL
NO. 12-00705 LEK-BMK; ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

4