Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00549/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00549-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

George L. Mothershed, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Oklahoma et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-549-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's renewed Motion to allow electronic filing by a pro

se litigant. (Doc. 16). We denied the prior motion without prejudice to refiling upon the

filing of an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Order of Mar.

19, 2012. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint with 102 pages and 41

footnotes. While this is an improvement over the original complaint, the amended complaint

is not a short and plain statement of the claim. Instead, it is an historical document, covering

plaintiff's relationship to the Oklahoma bar over the years. One can comply with the

pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) without violating Rule

8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Moreover, the complaint is so riddled with issues involving jurisdiction,

venue, immunity, and the like that it is most unlikely that even a complaint that complied

with the Rules would survive in this District. Allowing electronic filing would only facilitate

litigation filed in the wrong forum. 

Case 2:12-cv-00549-FJM Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 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 -

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DISMISSING without prejudice the first amended

complaint for violating Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. It is further ORDERED DENYING

plaintiff's Motion to allow electronic filing. (Doc. 16). 

We once again urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a local lawyer. We also urge him

to file any second amended complaint in the proper district in Oklahoma, which is where this

case is likely to be transferred should a viable claim ever be stated.

At all events, plaintiff shall have to and including April 20, 2012 to file a second

amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00549-FJM Document 20 Filed 04/04/12 Page 2 of 2