United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge.
On
April 23, 2019, this Court granted Defendants' Motion for
More Definite Statement and Motion to Strike and provided
Plaintiffs with an opportunity to file an amended complaint
in compliance with the Court's Order (Doc. 17). When
Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, Defendants
filed a Request for Dismissal Under Rule 41(b) (Doc. 20), and
this Court issued an order to show cause as to why the action
should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure
to comply with court orders (Doc. 21). Plaintiffs claimed
they “mislabeled” a prior filing (Doc. 19), which
was intended to include their amended complaint (Doc. 25).
The Court thus denied Defendants' Request for Dismissal
and provided Plaintiffs with another opportunity to file the
amended complaint (Doc. 29). Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint on August 16, 2019, and Defendants have again moved
for dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The motion is fully briefed and the Court rules as
follows.
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a defendant may
move to dismiss an action or claim if a plaintiff
“fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order.” Defendants argue that Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) fails to comply with both this
Court's April 23, 2019 Order (Doc. 17; see also
Doc. 29) and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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). In addition,
the 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).
The
Court agrees that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does not
satisfy the federal pleading standards and fails to abide by
Rule 8's requirement for a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Rather, the Amended Complaint is comprised
of seventy-seven pages of narration with vague references to
the deprivation of “[m]ultiple [c]onstitutional
[f]reedoms” and violations of due process. Plaintiffs
have thus made no effort to tie the facts in the narrative to
the legal elements of any cause of action. The Court declines
to engage in the cumbersome task of sifting through the
pleading to guess what causes of action have been alleged
against each individual Defendant and which facts correspond
to the elements of those speculated claims.
Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint thus fails to comply with Rule 8 and the
standards previously set forth in this Court's April 23,
2019 Order (Doc. 17), and as a result, may be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See
Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d
671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating a complaint that fails to
comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice under Rule
41(b)). “Despite this authority, dismissal is a harsh
penalty and therefore, it should only be imposed in extreme
circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzlelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether dismissal
is warranted, the Court weighs five factors:
(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket;
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5)
the availability of less drastic alternatives.
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (quotation omitted).
Here,
the Court finds that the first two factors favor dismissal.
Plaintiffs are unable to comply with Rule 8, which as a
result, hinders this Court's ability to move the case
toward disposition. The third factor also favors dismissal as
there is no risk of prejudice in resolving Defendants'
motion in their favor. Because public policy favors the
disposition of cases on their merits, the fourth factor
weighs against dismissal. Finally, in considering the
availability of less drastic alternatives, the Court notes
that dismissal without prejudice is an available and less
drastic sanction in this case.[1] See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
1260 (holding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's
complaint for failing to comply with a court order);
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)
(affirming dismissal of amended complaint that did not comply
with Rule 8). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is
granted as modified. Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint (Doc. 30) is dismissed without
prejudice.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
terminate this action and enter judgment
accordingly.
---------
Notes:
[1] Because the Court has already provided
Plaintiffs with an opportunity to file an amended complaint
that complies with Rule 8 and Plaintiffs were unable to do
so, the Court finds that another dismissal ...