United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is Defendants' Motion for More Definite
Statement (Doc. 11), in which they assert they are unable to
frame a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' Complaint
(Doc. 1) absent further specificity of the nature of the
claims.
In
order to state a claim for relief, Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint must
include: (1) “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction;” (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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e), “[a] party
may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which
a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response.” Rule 12(e) is intended “to strike at
unintelligibility rather than want of detail, ”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dean, 854 F.Supp. 626, 649
(D. Ariz. 1994), and “is not to be used to substitute
discovery, ” Stoyanof v. Crocodiles Not
Waterlillies, L.L.C., No. 11-00384-HWG, 2011 WL
13232088, at *3 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2011).
Plaintiffs'
forty-eight-paragraph Complaint fails to separate out the
various causes of action or claims for relief, or specify
which defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.
It also appears to include various criminal allegations
against both Defendant Cluff and other unnamed parties,
allegations against general harm to the community at large,
and vague challenges to the constitutionality of Arizona
Revised Statutes §§ 12-821, 12-821.01, 11-622,
“as well as other statutes.” (Doc. 1 at ¶
25). The pleading, by its very nature, violates Rule 8's
requirement for a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for More Definite
Statement will be granted.
In
addition, to the extent the Complaint appears to assert any
criminal charges, the Court notes that “a private
citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see
Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F.Supp.2d 596, 635 (E.D. Penn.
2014) (“In federal court, at least, a private
individual cannot prosecute a criminal action; not only do
federal criminal laws provide no basis for such prosecution,
but under Article III of the Federal Constitution, federal
courts lack jurisdiction over such suits.”).
Accordingly, because it is unclear how these criminal
allegations relate to the underlying claims, Defendants'
Motion to Strike is also granted.
In
filing a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs are advised to
become familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] As stated above,
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
a complaint must include: (1) “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction;” (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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). These general pleading
requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete
numbered paragraphs that are “simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Plaintiffs must also set
forth each discrete legal claim for relief in separate counts
(i.e., count one, count two, etc.).
The
First Amended Complaint must provide each Defendant with fair
notice of the claims asserted and must plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). This plausibility standard demands
sufficient factual content to allow the Court to “draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, Rule 8 “demands more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation,
” id, and “conclusory allegations of law
and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient, ”
Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1998).
Finally,
if Plaintiff elect to file a First Amended Complaint but fail
to comply with the instructions explained in this Order, fail
to prosecute this action, or otherwise fail to comply with
the federal and local rules, the Court may dismiss the action
with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
53 (9th Cir. 1995) (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow
a district court's local rules is a proper ground for
dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se
plaintiffs complaint for failing to comply with a court
order).
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for
More Definite Statement and Motion to Strike (Doc. 11) are
granted.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave
to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Order no
later than May 20, 2019.
---------
Notes:
[1] The Local Rules are available at:
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/local-rules, and the Federal
Rules are available at:
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/civil-procedure.pdf.
The fact that Plaintiffs are appearing pro se does not excuse
any failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th
Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings ...