Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00260/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Margaret J. “Meg” Hinchey,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Tom Horne, as an individual and as 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona; 

Jane Doe Horne, an individual; Richard 

Bistrow, as an individual and as Chief 

Deputy Attorney General; Laura Bistrow, 

an individual; and State of Arizona, 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-0260 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants have jointly filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. 6; 

Doc. 9. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint violates Rule 8(a)(2)’s requirement 

that Plaintiff provide a “short and plain statement of the claim[.]” Doc. 6 at 1. 

Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Id. at 6. For the 

following reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion.1

I. Background. 

 The following allegations are taken primarily from Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff 

Margaret Hinchey is an Arizona Peace Officer and has been an employee at Arizona’s 

Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”). Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 17, 21. In 2011, Defendant Tom 

 

1

 Defendants’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been 

fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 15 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Horne, the current Arizona Attorney General, assigned Plaintiff to conduct an internal 

investigation regarding leaks to the media. Id., ¶ 82, 84. While conducting the 

investigation, Plaintiff uncovered evidence of illegal campaign financing for Horne’s 

2010 political campaign. Id., ¶¶ 102, 119. Plaintiff decided to report this information to 

the FBI. Id., ¶¶ 117, 123. This report led to further investigation from the FBI and action 

by the Maricopa County Attorney’s office. See Doc. 1-2. Horne later discovered that 

Plaintiff was the source of the information. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 152. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants Horne and Bistrow conspired to retaliate against her. Id. passim. Among 

other things, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants then engaged in a “smear campaign” (id., 

¶¶ 149–217) and maliciously began an internal investigation against her, which would 

harm her reputation as a peace officer (id., ¶¶ 218–344). Plaintiff eventually filed a 

complaint in Maricopa Superior Court, asserting various causes of action. Id., ¶¶ 376-

498. 

On the basis of her § 1983 claim, Defendant Horne removed the case to this Court. 

Doc. 1. Defendants now seek to strike Plaintiff’s 72-page complaint, which also includes 

ten exhibits, as violating Rule 8(a)(2). 

II. Legal Standard. 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain “a short and 

plain statement of the claim,” and that each “allegation be simple, concise, and direct.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & 8(e). Rule 41(b) further states that if “the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules . . . a defendant may move to dismiss the action 

or any claim against it.” The issue is whether Plaintiff’s 72-page complaint, which 

contains 499 paragraphs and ten exhibits, requires dismissal. 

 The Ninth Circuit has held that “verbosity or length is not by itself a basis for 

dismissing a complaint based on Rule 8(a).” Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept., 530 

F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); but see Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. 

Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of a 

733-page complaint as prejudicial and showing bad faith). To qualify for dismissal, the 

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 15 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

complaint must be so complex or confusing that a defendant could not readily discern the 

allegations being made against him. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal and noting that only “by months or years of 

discovery and motions [could] each defendant find out what he is being sued for”); 

Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming 

dismissal of a 48-page complaint as “verbose, confusing, and conclusory”); Schmidt v. 

Herrmann, 614 F.2d 1221, 1223 (9th Cir. 1980) (affirming dismissal of 30-page 

complaint because it was “impossible to designate the cause or causes of action attempted 

to be alleged in the complaint”). 

III. Analysis. 

 Plaintiff’s complaint, which was drafted by Plaintiff’s counsel, certainly is long, 

but it is not so complex or confusing that Defendants cannot readily answer it. In 

Hearns, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s finding that a 68-page complaint 

violated Rule 8(a)(2). 530 F.3d at 1127. The court’s findings apply equally well to the 

complaint at issue here: 

[T]he complaint at issue here was not “replete with redundancy and largely 

irrelevant.” Cf. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. It set out more factual detail 

than necessary, but the overview was relevant to Plaintiff's causes of action 

. . . . Nor was it “confusing and conclusory.” Cf. Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674. 

The complaint is logically organized, divided into a description of the 

parties, a chronological factual background, and a presentation of 

enumerated legal claims, each of which lists the liable Defendants and legal 

basis therefor. The [allegations] contain excessive detail, but are 

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. 

Id. at 1132. Defendants nevertheless argue that the complaint contains superfluous 

factual details. Doc. 6 at 3, 4. For example, the complaint contains details about the 

actions of unnamed co-conspirators, the possible motivations for Defendants’ actions, 

and Plaintiff’s work history. Id. While such details may not be necessary, they do not 

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 15 Filed 04/17/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

make the complaint “replete with redundancy and largely irrelevant.” McHenry, 84 F.3d 

at 1177. Rather, the details at least render more plausible Plaintiff’s claims of conspiracy 

and reputational harm. See Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 377, 381. Defendants also argue that the 

complaint fails to clearly delineate the actions committed by each Defendant. Id. at 4. 

Having read the complaint, the Court finds that the complaint sufficiently specifies the 

actions of each Defendant. See, e.g., Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 388, 389 (identifying the defamatory 

statements made by each Defendant). Moreover, where the complaint does refer to 

Defendants collectively, it does so in the context of conspiracy. See, e.g., Doc. 1-1, ¶ 381 

(accusing “Defendants” of conspiring to commit various acts against Plaintiff). 

Finally, Defendants emphasize the excessive nature of Plaintiff’s ten exhibits, 

which contain approximately 150-pages of additional information. See Doc. 1-2 

(exhibits). The exhibits appear to be either largely repetitive of the complaint’s 

allegations or of limited relevance to the case. See, e.g., Doc. 1-2, Exhibit 1 

(reproducing Maricopa County Attorney’s “Order Requiring Compliance”); Exhibit 8 

(reproducing Plaintiff’s Notice of Claim against Defendants). But the Court finds that the 

exhibits do not render the complaint confusing or prejudicial. Defendants need only 

answer the allegations in the complaint itself. Therefore, while not a model of brevity, 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not require dismissal.2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 6) is denied. 

Dated this 17th day of April, 2013. 

 

2

 The parties’ citations to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), 

and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), are inapposite. These cases addressed the 

minimum pleading necessary to render a claim plausible. They did not address when a complaint violates Rule 8(a)(2) for being overly long or complex. 

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 15 Filed 04/17/13 Page 4 of 4