Mather v. U.S. Government et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE re 1 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 1/31/2013. Summary of Order: ~ The action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with Rule 8. "[S]hould Plaintiff fil e an amended complaint, to avoid dismissal, she must either pay the required filing fee [$350.00] or submit a completed and executed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPa rticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). MS. DIANE MATHER, as a participant not registered to receive electronic notifications, was served this date with a copy of the instant order as well as Form AO 240: "Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees & Affidavit" and Form AO 240A "Order to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs."

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DIANE MATHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U.S. GOVERNMENT, FIRST
HAWAIIAN BANK, ET AL.,
Defendants.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 13-00050 LEK-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On January 25, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Diane Mather
(“Plaintiff”) filed an untitled document requesting “Judicial
Review of Private Administrative Process.”

[Dkt. no. 1.]

Court construes this document as a Complaint.

The

The Court finds

this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant
to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local
Rules”).

After careful consideration of the Complaint and the

relevant legal authority, this Court HEREBY DISMISSES the
Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
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”).
Plaintiff is appearing pro se; consequently, the Court
liberally construes her 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

2

(1982) (per curiam)).

Even liberally construed, however, the

purported allegations in the Complaint are unintelligible and
fail to state any kind of claim that is remotely plausible on its
face.
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not identify any specific
claims that Plaintiff is advancing, but rather merely attaches a
number of exhibits that appear to relate in some way to
Plaintiff’s attempt to enter into some sort of written agreement,
possibly related to an unpaid balance on a mortgage.

The Court

cannot, however, make out a single allegation from the Complaint.
As such, the Complaint 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.

The Court recognizes that

“[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the
defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the
complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to
dismissal of the action.”
248 (9th Cir. 1995).

Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245,

As such, the dismissal of the Complaint is

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not paid
the required civil filing fee or filed an application to proceed
in forma pauperis.

Failure to pay the filing fee or file an in

forma pauperis application are sufficient grounds for dismissal
of an action.

See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th

Cir. 1995) (finding that the district court had the authority to
dismiss the complaint for failure to pay partial filing fee); In
re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming
dismissal of appeal of pro se litigant for failure to pay
required filing fees).

Thus, should Plaintiff file an amended

complaint, to avoid dismissal, she must either pay the required
filing fee or submit a completed and executed application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Complaint,
filed January 25, 2013, is HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 31, 2013.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
DIANE MATHER V. U.S. GOVERNMENT, FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK, ET AL.;
CIVIL NO. 13-00050 LEK-KSC; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

4