Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01217/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Julio Rodriguez,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kentucky Fried Chicken,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1217-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises upon the Court’s review of the file and pro se Plaintiff’s

timely-filed Amended Complaint, filed in an effort to comply with both the Court’s July 9,

2008 order and, among others, Rule 8(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by the July

22, 2008 deadline. Plaintiff has consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (docket # 4) Although the pro se Amended Complaint does

not allege the statutory basis for the Court’s limited jurisdiction, it is clear that Plaintiff

invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. §1331). 

A fair comparison of the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint

reveals that these pleadings are nearly identical: both are one page in length, both allege

violations of Tile VII, the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and/or the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and, perhaps, most importantly, neither the

Complaint nor the Amended Complaint allege any specific facts claims describing the acts

or omissions of Defendant which allegedly violate the various Acts. In fact, the Amended

Complaint only contains the conclusory allegation that Plaintiff “ha[s] been discriminated

against by being terminated from [his] employment with Kentucky Fried Chicken.” (docket

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/30/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 If the 90 days were to begin to run on January 30, 2008, Plaintiff was required to file

his complaint on or before April 29, 2008. Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed on July 1, 2008.

This issue will not be addressed at this time sua sponte.

- 2 -

# 5) The only attachment to the Amended Complaint is a copy of Rule 8, FED.R.CIV.P.

Although the original Complaint also lacked factual allegations, at least Plaintiff attached

thereto copies of the EEOC’s January 30, 2008 cover letter, dismissal notice and notice of

right to sue within 90 days.1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss a

complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). Hearns v. San Bernardino

Police Department, ___ F.3d ___ , 2008 WL 2579243 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Nevijel v. North

Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Ninth Circuit in Hearns sets

forth an excellent compendium of circuit authority in which complaints were dismissed for

failure to comply with Rule 8(a)’s mandate that a complaint “must contain . . . a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a)(2),

FED.R.CIV.P. (emphasis added). “Under Rule 8(a), the plaintiff must give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Mendiondo v.

Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, a complaint need not contain detailed factual

allegations, but it must provide more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929

(2007). 

In Hearns, the majority acknowledged that “[t]he FAC [first amended

complaint] and the original complaint contain excessive detail,” but held that an 81-page

Complaint and 68-page First Amended Complaint, filed by counsel, should not have been

dismissed with prejudice by the district court because they “were intelligible and clearly

delineate the claims and the Defendants against whom the claims are made. . . Here, the

Defendants should have no difficulty in responding to the claims with an answer and/or with

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Hearns, 2008 WL 2579243 * 6. The majority in Hearns

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/30/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

also stated that the district court has inherent “remedial authority to relieve a defendant of

the burden of responding to a complaint with excessive factual detail. One option would have

been to simply strike the surplusage from the FAC.” Id. Another option is “the judge could

have excused Defendants from answering those [relevant but unnecessary] paragraphs.” Id.

In Hearns, the majority and minority affirmed as valid circuit authority

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir.1996). Hearns, 2008 WL 2579243 at * 4. In

McHenry, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in

dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) because the trial judge “had already given the

plaintiffs multiple opportunities to comply, along with specific instructions on how to correct

the complaint.” McHenry, 84 F.3d 1172. 

“The failure of a complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

is usually dealt with by a motion made under Rule 12(b)(6), while the need for supplying a

more definite statement is ordinarily brought before the court by a motion invoking Rule

12(e).” Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431-32 (9th Cir.1969) (cited

approvingly in Hearns). “However, in an aggravated case a district court has discretion to

dismiss an action for failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 8(a)(2).” Id. (citing

Corcoran v. Yorty, 347 F.2d 222 (9th Cir. 1965)); Agnew v. Moody, 330 F.2d 868, 870-871

(9th Cir. 1964). “But, as exemplified by Corcoran and Agnew, a dismissal for a violation

under Rule 8(a)(2), is usually confined to instances in which the complaint is so ‘verbose,

confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.’” Id. A decision to

dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 8 is within the trial court’s sound discretion. Gillibeau,

417 F.3d at 431.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint presents the converse problem addressed in

Hearns. Rather than being verbose, the Amended Complaint in this case includes no factual

allegations explaining how Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by terminating his

employment. The Amended Complaint truly contains a “short and plain statement” of the

grounds and claims. The Amended Complaint alleges no facts required by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a), to show a basis for Defendant’s liability under Title VII, the ADA or

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/30/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

the ADEA. Stated differently, the Amended Complaint does not “‘state[] clearly how

[Defendant] is alleged to have violated plaintiff[’s] legal rights . . . and [does not] focus on

linking [any] factual allegations to [his] actual legal claims.’” Hearns, at * 4 (citing

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1176) (quoting district court’s order). While the Amended Complaint

gives Defendant fair notice of the nature of the claims (violation of Title VII, the ADA and

the ADEA), it does not give Defendant fair notice of “the grounds upon which [such claims]

rest[].” Mendiondo, 521 F.3d at 1104. Moreover, the Court does not have the options,

discussed in Hearns, to order, for example, that Defendant need not answer certain verbose

or extraneous allegations. This is an aggravated case of failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(1)

and (2) and the Court concludes that it is unfair and inconsistent with Fed.R.Civ. P. 1 to

require Defendant to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees to file a motion for more definite state

due to Plaintiff’s failure ab initio to comply with Rule 8.

In view of the foregoing, the Court will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to

amend his Complaint to comply with this order and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that on or before Monday, August 18, 2008, Plaintiff shall

file a Second Amended Complaint setting forth with specificity factual allegations describing

how Defendant, through its identified employees, allegedly violated Plaintiff’s legal rights

under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with this order may

result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled) pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ. P. 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, or the Court’s inherent power. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258,1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (trial courts have the inherent power to control their dockets

and may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case). 

Dated this 30th day of July, 2008. 

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/30/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Case 2:08-cv-01217-LOA Document 6 Filed 07/30/08 Page 5 of 5