Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02692/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02692-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

Bradley W. Kennedy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Angela K. Andrews, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2692-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the court are Nicholas Hentoff's Motion to Dismiss on abstention grounds

(doc. # 4) and Plaintiff's Response (doc. # 32); the Maricopa County defendants' Motion to

Dismiss (doc. # 27), the Response (doc. # 35), and Reply (styled as a Response)(doc. # 43);

and the Motion to Dismiss by the other defendants (doc. # 30) and the Response (doc. # 49).

Because of the incoherent nature of Plaintiff's complaint, the court first addresses

whether his complaint complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which specifies grounds upon

which a district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case, and the general pleading

requirements provided in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

I. Statement of the Case

Plaintiff ("Kennedy") filed an action in this court on September 6, 2005. His

complaint is 44 pages of disconnected facts and narratives, legal phrases, vituperation,

innumerable state and federal statutory citations, and requests for expansive and obscure

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 7
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 -

relief. From the defendants' motions the court infers that the allegations stem from an

incident in which Kennedy was arrested for taking several loaded weapons to the Arizona

State University College of Law Library. After his arrest, law enforcement officers removed

a number of firearms from Kennedy's home/office. Kennedy appears to be alleging that the

some of the defendants conspired to illegally remove his firearms and other belongings.

After the arrest, Kennedy's wife filed for divorce. Kennedy also appears to be alleging that

his wife improperly took community property assets with the assistance of some of the

defendants. Again, these assertion are not gleaned from Kennedy's complaint, but from the

defendants' explanation of the case. Doc. # 30 at 2-4. This is not Kennedy's first action

involving these same facts. 

Kennedy is currently awaiting trial in Maricopa County Superior Court, State v.

Bradley W. Kennedy, CR 2003-031405-001, on criminal charges. The prosecutors in that

case are Angela K Andrews and Brad Astrowsky, two defendants in this case. In addition,

Defendants Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Allen Romer, Steve Bailey, and Raymond Jones

investigated Kennedy's criminal charges. They are all defendants in this case. 

Kennedy is a party in a divorce case currently awaiting trial in Maricopa County

Superior Court. See Joann Knight Kennedy v. Bradley William Kennedy, FC 2003-001980.

Joanne Kennedy and her two attorneys, Patrick A. Sampair and Terrance D. Dunmire, are

defendants in this case. Nicholas S. Hentoff represented Bradley Kennedy in FC 2003-

001980 and a related case, CV 2003-010254, in which Joanne Kennedy sued both Bradley

Kennedy and his sister, Kate Stone. Nicholas S. Hentoff is also a defendant in this case.

In 2005, Kennedy brought charges against Nicholas S. Hentoff in Maricopa County

Chandler Justice Court, seeking damages for the alleged theft of the same property that is the

subject of this action. See Bradley William Kennedy v. Nicholas S. Hentoff, CV05-025845C.

The court dismissed that case. Doc. # 4. 

Defendants also allege that Kennedy has recently sued Maricopa County, the State

Bar of Arizona, the State Bar Foundation, the Church of the Latter Day Saints, the Honorable

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 7
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 -

David L. Roberts, Sterling R. Threet, and Anthony H. Misseldine in Justice and Superior

Court. Doc. 30 at 4. 

II. Legal Standards

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court "shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the "allegation of poverty is untrue"

or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can file

proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings,

not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints"). "It is also clear that

section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint that fails to state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous

where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are

judicially recognized facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,

33 (1992). "A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm another."

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 

B. Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a defendant to frame a responsive

pleading. A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be

simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A complaint having the factual

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 3 of 7
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 -

elements of a cause of action present but scattered throughout the complaint and not

organized into a "short and plain statement of the claim" may be dismissed for failure to

satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

In order to assist litigants to understand the Rule 8(e) requirements that averments "be

simple, concise, and direct," Rule 84 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

samples in an Appendix of Forms, which are "intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity

of statement which the rules contemplate." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.

1996). An example is Form 9 (Complaint for Negligence):

1. Allegation of jurisdiction

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston,

Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff, who

was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broker, and was otherwise

injured, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body

and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the

sum of one thousand dollars.

4. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of ____

dollars and costs. 

Id. "This complaint fully sets forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory,

with enough detail to guide discovery. It can be read in seconds and answered in minutes."

Id. In addition, to satisfy Rule 8, each claim must be stated in a separate count. Buatista v.

Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. Analysis

A. Kennedy's Complaint

Kennedy's complaint falls far short of satisfying the requirements of Rule 8. Kennedy

does not provide a "short and plain statement" for each claim. Instead, his complaint is

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 4 of 7
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 -

extremely verbose, meandering, and conclusory without providing the necessary facts. He

lists numerous statutes within each count and does not provide facts to explain how each

defendant violated the listed statutes. None of the counts in Kennedy's complaint presents

an intelligible picture of the nature of this lawsuit. It is only after reading the defendants'

motion is it is possible to discern what the case may be about.

 Kennedy's complaint also has a frivolous and malicious character His complaint

provides numerous accusations against many defendants. All or nearly all of the defendants

in the action either represented Kennedy or his wife or were involved in the process of

bringing criminal charges against him. This suggests that Kennedy's motive behind this

lawsuit is to interfere with the State's ability to criminally prosecute him or harass people, not

to vindicate his rights. Kennedy has also filed proceedings against many of these same

defendants in other courts relating to the same incidents. As stated above, 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss an in forma pauperis action that is frivolous or

malicious. 

D. Leave to Amend

Kennedy will be given an opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend his complaint to

make clear his allegations in short, plain statements with each claim for relief identified in

separate sections. In the amended complaint, Kennedy must write out the rights he believes

were violated, the name of the person who violated the right, exactly what that individual did

or failed to do, how the action or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of

Kennedy's right, and what specific injury Kennedy suffered because of the other person's

conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Each claim of an alleged

violation must be set forth in a separate count. Any amended complaint filed by Kennedy

must conform to the requirements of Rule 8(a) and (e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Kennedy is warned that if he elects to file an amended complaint and if he fails to

comply with the Court's instructions explained in this Order, the action will be dismissed

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 -

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and/or Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal with prejudice of prolix,

argumentative, and redundant amended complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a));

Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981)(affirming

dismissal of amended complaint that was "equally as verbose, confusing, and conclusory as

the initial complaint"); Corcoran v. Yorty, 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1965)(affirming

dismissal without leave to amend second complaint that was "so verbose, confused and

redundant that its true substance, if any, [was] well disguised"). 

 In addition, if Kennedy's amended complaint, should he elect to file one, still appears

frivolous or malicious, the court will dismiss the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

on that ground as well. Section 1915(f)(1) further provides that "[j]udgment may be rendered

for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings . . . ." Kennedy may

also be ordered to pay the defendants' attorneys' fees under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, which allows courts to award sanctions when an action is frivolous, legally

unreasonable, or without factual foundation. See Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d

823, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)("[S]anctions shall be assessed if the paper filed in district court and

signed by an attorney or an unrepresented party is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without

factual foundation, even though the paper was not filed in subjective bad faith."), overruled

on other grounds, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990). A sanction can

include an award of attorney's fees if the pleading was used for "improper purposes, such as

to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation." Cook

v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985). Sanctions may also be

assessed against a pro se plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 when the plaintiff multiplies the

proceedings in any case "unreasonably and vexatiously." Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230,

1235-36 (9th Cir. 1990)(determining that sanctions were proper when "plaintiff's amended

complaint did not materially differ from one which the district court had already concluded

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 -

did not state a claim, and by continually moving for alterations in the district court's original

judgment despite the court's clear unwillingness to change its mind . . ."). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to

comply with Rule 8, with leave to file an amended complaint by January, 3 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an amended complaint

by January 3, 2006, the clerk is directed to dismiss this action without further order of the

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nicolas Hentoff's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 4),

the Motion to Dismiss by the Maricopa County defendant' (doc. # 27), and the Motion to

Dismiss by the other defendants (doc. # 30) are denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint,

the court will screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it will be

necessary for defendants to answer. 

DATED this 8th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02692-NVW Document 57 Filed 12/09/05 Page 7 of 7