Thomas et al v. Zion Lutheran School et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Striking the complaint. Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Clerk of Court to send Thomas a copy of the Court's Pro Se Litigant Guide along with this order. The Court Reserves Ruling on the motions pending in this case until it reviews the amended complaint. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/14/12. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALBERT THOMAS and ATG, a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-cv-1256-JPG-DGW

ZION LUTHERAN SCHOOL, DAVID
KNIEPKAMP, ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH,
GARY BYERS, RICK GOVE, TERRY
MARINO, CATHY RUDOLT and HELEN
MYERS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff Albert Thomas’s complaint
(Doc. 1). The unredacted complaint (Doc. 2) is 150 pages long (more than half of which are
single-spaced) and consists of 498 paragraphs. It also has 47 pages of exhibits attached. It
contains excessive detail, substantial legal argument and extensive citation to evidence.
Thomas’s pleading does not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a):
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
Because it does not comply with Rule 8(a), the Court STRIKES the complaint, but
ORDERS that Thomas shall have up to and including January 7, 2013, to file an amended

complaint that complies with Rule 8(a). The amended complaint should include a statement
about why a federal court has jurisdiction over this case, a short, plain statement about how
Thomas believes the defendants harmed him, and a short, plain statement of what he wants the
Court to do. He may include a brief statement of the background facts he thinks are important to
give context to his allegations against the defendants, but he does not need to allege every factual
detail, include evidentiary material or cite extensive legal argument at this point. Based on a
cursory review of the complaint, the Court believes Thomas can accomplish this in twenty pages
or less. Accordingly, it will limit his amended complaint to twenty pages. The amended
complaint must also comply with Local Rule 5.1(b), which states:
(b) General Format of Papers Presented for Filing
All pleadings, motions, documents, and other papers presented for filing shall be on 8½" x
11" white paper of good quality, flat and unfolded, and shall be plainly typewritten,
printed, or prepared by a clearly legible duplication process and double-spaced, except for
quoted material. Each page shall be numbered consecutively. This rule does not apply to
(a) exhibits submitted for filing and (b) documents filed in removed actions prior to
removal from state court.
(emphasis added). If Thomas fails to timely file an amended complaint that complies with Rule
8(a), the Court may dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send Thomas a copy of the Court’s Pro
Se Litigant Guide along with this order. The Court RESERVES RULING on the motions
pending in this case until it reviews the amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 14, 2012

s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE