Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02066/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 - 06cv2066

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEAH HASKINS-GREEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-02006-JM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 8

NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER SAN DIEGO;

BALBOA HOSPITAL E.R. DEPT.,

Defendants.

Federal Defendants Naval Medical Center San Diego and Balboa Hospital E.R. Department

move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or,

alternatively, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Plaintiff Leah Haskins-Green has

not responded to the motion. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(d)(1) this matter is appropriate for decision without

oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the Rule 8 motion and instructs

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty days of entry of this order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, commenced this action on September 5, 2006 in the Superior

Court of California, County of San Diego. The form complaint was drafted using Judicial Council

of California Form 982.1. The complaint generally indicates that she brings this action against

Defendant for general negligence as she suffered loss of use of property and general damages.

(Compl. at p.3). On September 22, 2006 Defendants removed the action to this court. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-02066-JM-RBB Document 5 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 06cv2066

DISCUSSION

Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Dismissal of a complaint is also appropriate if the

complaint is “vague, conclusory, and general and does not set forth any material facts in support of

the allegations.” North Star Intern v. Arizona Corp. Com’n, 720 F.2d 578, 583 (9th Cir. 1983). While

pro se complaints are construed liberally, litigants are not excused from complying with basic pleading

rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

The present complaint is too vague and conclusory to provide Defendants with adequate notice

of the claims asserted against them. The complaint does not identify the legal claim with sufficient

clarity such that Defendants can conduct discovery or prepare a defense to the claim. The complaint

does not allege medical negligence, only general negligence. Further, the complaint does not identify

any individual involved in the complained of conduct or even allege the date of her injury. Absent

such minimal allegations, Defendants cannot be expected to adequately defend against the complaint.

Accordingly, the court grants the motion to dismiss under Rule 8(a), and instructs Plaintiff to file an

amended complaint within twenty days of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 8, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-02066-JM-RBB Document 5 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2