Glass v. State of Nebraska et al
Filing
212
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Glass's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Mangan v. Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988) ("A complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of C ivil Procedure 41(b) after allowing time to file an amended complaint."). All pending motions are denied as moot. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LEOURIETA B. GLASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8:11CV211
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on its own motion. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff Leourieta B. Glass’s (“Glass”) Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
On June 9, 2011, Glass filed a 164-page Complaint that consisted of more than
800 numbered paragraphs and at least 60 legal theories. (Filing No. 1.) In response
to Glass’s Complaint, Defendants argued, among other things, that the Complaint
failed to comply with the general rules of pleading set forth in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. (See Filing Nos. 46, 48, 55, 81, 87, 94, 98,100, 120, 122, 125, 127, 139,
182, 185, 187, and 190.) The court agreed. In a January 6, 2012, Memorandum and
Order, this court stated:
Glass’s Complaint fails to comply with the general rules of pleading set
forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Specifically, Defendants’
names are strewn throughout the 164-page Complaint, and Glass utterly
fails to identify which allegations and legal theories relate to each
Defendant. Further, Glass’s allegations are unorganized, rambling, and
virtually indecipherable. Apparently, Glass expects the court and the
parties to sort through her voluminous Complaint in order to determine
what allegations, if any, relate to each Defendant. The court will not
undertake such a task.
On the court’s own motion, the court will give Glass until
February 6, 2012, to amend her Complaint in accordance with Rules 8
and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any amended complaint
must clearly (1) set forth a short and plain statement of the claims
against each Defendant; (2) state claims in numbered paragraphs limited
to a single set of circumstances; (3) set forth each legal theory and how
it relates to each Defendant.
....
The court will dismiss this matter with prejudice if Glass fails to
file an amended complaint or files an amended complaint that does not
comply with Rule 8 pleading requirements. See Mangan [v.
Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988).] (“A complaint that fails
to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after allowing time to file an
amended complaint.”).
(Filing No. 193 at CM/ECF p. 4.) The court later extended the time for Glass to file
an amended complaint to April 9, 2012. (Text Order Dated January 19, 2012, at
Filing No. 197).
As of this date, Glass has made no attempt to amend her Complaint. The court
warned Glass that failure to amend her Complaint would result in dismissal of this
matter with prejudice. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Glass’s Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Mangan v.
Weinberger, 848 F.2d 909, 911 (8th Cir. 1988) (“A complaint that fails to comply
with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) after allowing time to file an amended complaint.”).
2.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
2
3.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?