Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00164/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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 07cv164

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES K. WARD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv164 BTM (LSP)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

GRANTING ALTERNATIVE MOTION

FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT [Doc. #13]

vs.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

DEFENSE FINANCE AND

ACCOUNTING SERVICE AGENCY

(DFAS),

Defendants.

On January 23, 2007, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

with this Court alleging that Defendants have refused to expedite his severance in

accordance with Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation Volume 7(A),

Chapter 35, which is promulgated pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5545(c)(1). Along with his

complaint, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Restraining Order,” though the nature

of this “request” is wholly unclear.

On April 24, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based upon Plaintiff’s failure

to meet the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

or, in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Defendants

argue that Plaintiff’s two-sentence handwritten complaint is vague and ambiguous and fails

to give Defendants fair notice of what Plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.

Case 3:07-cv-00164-BTM-LSP Document 18 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 4
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 07cv164

Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to Defendants’ motion, which the Court has

considered. However, Plaintiff’s opposition does not address the arguments set forth in

Defendants’ motion and, therefore, does not aid the Court in this determination.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is so vague and ambiguous that Defendants

cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's

jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3)

a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

While the requirements of notice pleading are minimal and a Plaintiff need not “set out in

detail the facts upon which he bases his claim,” a complaint must set forth enough detail to

“give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, the

“Defense Finance and Accounting Service refuses to expedite severance according to DOD

FMR 7A, (35) which is empowered by 5 USC III (D) 55(V) 5545(c)(1).” This bald statement,

while providing Defendants with notice of the regulation Plaintiff claims is at issue, fails to

specify why Plaintiff is entitled to any relief under this regulation. In addition, this statement

fails to explain what claim the Plaintiff is alleging against any Defendant other than the

Defense Finance and Accounting Service, if indeed he is intending to proceed against any

other entity. Plaintiff had a summons and complaint served on the Department of Defense,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, though there is no allegation in the complaint that even

refers to the United States Navy.

The Court, construing Plaintiff’s pleading liberally, because he is proceeding pro se,

has also examined Plaintiff’s concurrently-filed “Request for Restraining Order” to see if it

provides any more specifics that would help illuminate the allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint.

While this document does make reference to the non-payment of military severance, it does

not explain the basis for this claim of severance, and it is otherwise littered with seemingly

irrelevant material.

Case 3:07-cv-00164-BTM-LSP Document 18 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 4
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 07cv164

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is “‘so vague or ambiguous that the opposing

party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to

himself.’” Delta Education, Inc. v. Langlois, 719 F. Supp. 42, 50 (D.N.H. 1989) (quoting 5 C.

Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1376). Therefore,

Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED.

As for Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and so the Court

must liberally construe his pleadings. Moreover, when dealing with a pro se complaint,

“before dismissing an action, a court should always be certain that other less drastic

alternatives are not available.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); accord

Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980) (“[A] [pro se] complaint should not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”). The Court finds that any

pleading deficiencies in Plaintiff’s original complaint may be remedied by affording him the

opportunity to file an amended complaint, which is exactly what Defendant asks for in his

alternative motion for a more definite statement. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss

is DENIED without prejudice.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00164-BTM-LSP Document 18 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 4
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 07cv164

Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint, which adheres to the

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), as specified above, on or before July

27, 2007. This amended complaint must specifically identify each Defendant that Plaintiff

intends to proceed against. It also must specify: (1) the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction;

(2) the statute or regulation upon which Plaintiff’s claim is based; (3) how these regulations

provide a basis for his claim against each Defendant, that is, why they entitle Plaintiff to

relief; and (4) exactly what relief Plaintiff is seeking. Plaintiff shall title his amended pleading

“First Amended Complaint” and, in accordance with Civil Local Rule 15.1, it shall be “retyped

and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.” If

Plaintiff fails to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline set above, the Court

will dismiss this action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00164-BTM-LSP Document 18 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 4