Klauzinski v. Fukuda et al

Filing 11

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff shall, within 35 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, file a second amended complaint. No summonses shall issue pending further Order of the Court. Failure to comply with this order will subject this action to dismissal.(PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOYCE KLAUZINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE FUKUDA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION No.
14-10467-NMG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GORTON, J.
By Order dated April 11, 2014, plaintiff Joyce Klauzinski
was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and was directed to
show cause why this action should not be dismissed or file an
amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies of the
original complaint.

The April 11, 2014 Memorandum and Order

stated that the complaint failed to present a viable federal
question upon which relief can be granted and that there was no
reason to believe that diversity subject matter jurisdiction
exists because plaintiff had not satisfied the amount in
controversy requirement.
On May 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a ten-page handwritten
document (the “Show Cause Reply”) titled “Amended
Complaint/Fulfilment of Jurisdiction Order Dated 4/11/14 to cure
Deficiencies.”

See Docket No. 10.

In her Show Cause Reply,

plaintiff asserts diversity subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
$75,000.

She alleges a compensable loss in excess of

It is apparent that plaintiff made an effort to comply

with the directives contained in the Memorandum and Order.

However, the Court will not direct service of the Show Cause
Reply/Amended Complaint on the two defendants because it fails to
comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
If the plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she must file
a second amended complaint that comports with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As an

amended complaint completely supercedes the original complaint,
see Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Dia, Inc., 490 F.3d 86, 88
n. 2 (1st Cir. 2007), the plaintiff should repeat in the second
amended complaint any allegations in the original and amended
complaints underlying the claims in the second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint must clearly identify, in the
case caption and body of the complaint, the identity of the
defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the
complaint must name all the parties ....”).

The body of the

amended complaint must also be in numbered paragraphs, with each
paragraph “limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). It is often appropriate
for a single paragraph to be limited to a few sentences, or even
one sentence.
Rule 8(a) governs the substance of a complaint and requires
a plaintiff to include in the complaint, among other things, “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

This statement

must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is
2

and the grounds upon which it rests,’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see Rivera v.
Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2005).

It must afford

the defendant(s) a “[‘]meaningful opportunity to mount a
defense,’”

Díaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 377 F.3d 119, 123

(1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Rodríguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57
F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)).
Here, without detailing each and every pleading deficiency
in the Show Cause Reply/Amended Complaint, the Court finds that
it lacks the information necessary to set forth a cognizable
claim as to each defendant separately.

Plaintiff fails to set

forth the dates of each alleged wrongdoing and the alleged
wrongdoer.

Her generic allegations are not sufficient to meet

the Rule 8 pleading standards.

Notwithstanding that plaintiff is

proceeding pro se and lacks legal skills, and notwithstanding her
asserted medical problems, the burden remains on her to set forth
her claims in a manner that would permit each defendant to file a
meaningful response.

It would be immensely unfair to the

defendants to have to peruse the amended complaint as pled and to
attempt to cull out her specific claims in order to file a
response.

As the United States Supreme Court has stated, under

Rule 8, a plaintiff must plead more than a mere allegation that
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

the defendants have harmed her.

1937, 1949 (2009) (detailed factual allegations are not required
under Rule 8, but a complaint “demands more than an unadorned,
3

the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
If the plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the Court
will review the second amended complaint (without reference to
any allegations in previously-filed complaints and documents) and
determine whether the plaintiff sets forth a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

Summons will not issue until this review

is complete.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff shall, within 35 days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order, file a second amended complaint.

(2)

No summonses shall issue pending further Order of the
Court. Failure to comply with this order will subject
this action to dismissal.

So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated May 19, 2014

4