Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-4_08-cv-00384-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Alan Kemp, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DMI-Aviation, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-384-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Bernardo P. Velasco, recommending that the Complaint and this action be dismissed

with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Report and Recommendation, filed September 2, 2009, sets forth the procedural

history of this action.

By Court Order filed May 21, 2009, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second

amended complaint in compliance with the relevant pleading requirements of Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 8 and 9 and referred this action back to Magistrate Judge Velasco for all

pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court set forth the pleading and procedural requirements of bringing a proper

action in light of the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, citing McHenry v. Renne, 84

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996), and explained as follows: 

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 74 Filed 10/14/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

The 38 page First Amended Complaint in this action captions eight

separate causes of action, however, the Court is unable to discern what the true

causes of action, if any, are. The First Amended Complaint, as well as the

subsequent filings are “so confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise

unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Hearns v. San

Bernardino Police Dept., 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008)(internal citations

and quotation omitted). 

“Prolix, confusing complaints ... impose unfair burdens on litigants and

judges.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. A court may consider ‘[t]he burden

imposed by plaintiffs on defendants in related litigation” and the amount of

time and money spent in defending against poorly drafted proceedings in

present and related actions. Id. (citing Nevijel v. North

Coast Life Ins. Co., , 651 F.2d 671, 674-75 (9th Cir. 1981).

The previously filed federal complaints and the state court action appear

to arise from the same circumstances or facts, as best can be discerned, from

a review of the filings. Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to prosecute his

grievances, which do not appear to present justiciable claims.

The Court found, referencing previous court orders in actions filed by Plaintiff

individually or under the corporate identity Aviation Technologies LTD:

 . . . that Plaintiff has failed to bring a cause of action, starting as early as 2002,

against the named Defendants, by filing different actions in different courts

and venues, pro se as well as through the representation of counsel, or, albeit

improperly, on behalf of a corporate entity.

The Court set forth the procedural history of the issues that appear to be in dispute.

The Court further gave Plaintiff deference to amend in light of his pro se status, as follows:

Dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) is a harsh remedy, and

Ninth Circuit precedent clearly establishes “that the district court ‘should first

consider less drastic alternative.’” Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1132 (quoting

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178.) However, “[t]he propriety of dismissal for failure

to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly

without merit” and “applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for

dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(b).” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179 (citing

Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673.

It appears that the previously filed actions have been dismissed without

prejudice, and thus, have not provided Plaintiff with notice of, or required

Plaintiff to comply with, the pleading requirements of Rule 8. Because

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, “the [C]ourt must construe the pleadings

liberally and must afford the [P]laintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Lopez v.

Department of Health Services, 939 F.2d 881, 883-84 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting

Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th

Cir.1988). See also Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699(“court recognizes that it has a

duty to ensure that pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the

merits of their claim due to technical procedural requirements.”) Moreover,

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 74 Filed 10/14/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

although proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is nevertheless bound by the federal and

local rules of procedure. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Magistrate Judge Velasco issued his Report and Recommendation on September 2,

2009, recommending, “ upon consideration of the risk of prejudice to Defendants, Plaintiff’s

blatant disregard for court procedure, the numerous opportunities the Court has provided

Plaintiff to comply with proper procedure and the specific direction the Court has provided

to Plaintiff to assist in his compliance,” that the Complaint and this action should be

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

parties were advised in the Report and Recommendation that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b),

any party may serve and file written objections within 10 days after being served with a copy

of the Report and Recommendation.

Plaintiff filed documents subsequent to the Report and Recommendation, however,

no opposition was filed. The last filing was a Notice of Change of Address. 

The Court, after careful consideration of the five factors set forth in Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992), and an independent review of the record

herein, specifically the warnings set forth in the Order of this Court filed May 21, 2009,

orders as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation

[Doc. #58] is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions

of law by this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other matters are denied as moot. 

Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of October, 2009.

Case 4:08-cv-00384-FRZ Document 74 Filed 10/14/09 Page 3 of 3