Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00061/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00061-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LARRY CALDWELL,

NO. CIV. S-05-0061 FCD JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT; JAMES JOINER; R. JAN

PINNEY; TONY MONETTI; STEVEN

LAWRENCE; DONALD GENASCI; and

RONALD SEVERSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On January 11, 2005, plaintiff, Larry Caldwell (“plaintiff”)

filed a complaint with this court against defendants Roseville

Joint Unified School District, James Joiner, R. Jan Pinney, Tony

Monetti, Steven Lawrence, and Ronald Severson (collectively

“defendants”). On January 18, 2005, plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint, and on March 10, 2005, plaintiff filed the operative

Second Amended Complaint. Defendants now move to dismiss the

complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

and 12(b)(6), or, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to comply

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 20 Filed 06/30/05 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

Because the court concludes that the complaint is so

cluttered with minutiae as to defy clear understanding, the court

does not reach the merits of defendants’ motion. The complaint

is 112 pages long. It reads more like a personal journal, rife

with extraneous details, repetitive accusations, and plaintiff’s

impressions about events, than a proper complaint. Defendants

complain, justifiably, that they cannot discern from the

complaint as written, the precise nature of plaintiff’s claims

and thus cannot prepare a responsive pleading. By way of

example, defendants point to the “endless repetitive allegations,

and the cross-mixing of the Cal Education Code § 60002, § 60010,

§ 60045, § 60400, and § 35145.5, and the California Brown Act

(Cal Government Code § 54950, et seq.) relating to ‘open public

meetings’ into his allegations, while attempting to state claims

for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of United States

Constitutional Rights.” (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Dismiss at 9.) 

The court agrees with defendants that the complaint, as

currently drafted, is so muddled with extraneous and repetitive

allegations that neither the defendant nor the court can

ascertain the precise nature and scope of plaintiff’s claims. 

The only question then, is the appropriate remedy. Defendants

request dismissal under Rule 8(a). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides in relevant

part that, “[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . .

. shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . ..” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). The Seventh Circuit recently elaborated on the

meaning of Rule 8(a)’s short and plain statement requirement: 

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 20 Filed 06/30/05 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

1 While defendants did not move for relief under

Rule 12(e) courts can order a more definite statement sua

sponte. See Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 12.36(1) (3d Ed.

2004) and cases cited therein.

3

Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings

straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties

need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.

Federal judges have better things to do, and the

substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not

begin to cover the expense of the judiciary) should be

targeted on those litigants who take the preliminary

steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.

U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378

(7th Cir. 2003). While courts have granted dismissal of overly

verbose and confusing complaints, the court concludes that

dismissal in such cases creates tension with Rule 12(b)(6) which

directs that a claim should not be dismissed unless it appears

beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim which would entitle him or her to relief. 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957); NL Indus., Inc. v.

Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

Fortunately, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide

another mechanism to remedy the defects in plaintiff’s complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides:1

Motion for More Definite Statement. If a pleading to

which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or

ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to

frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a

more definite statement before interposing a responsive

pleading. The motion shall point out the defects

complained of and the details desired. If the motion is

granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within

10 days after notice of the order or within such other

time as the court may fix, the court may strike the

pleading to which the motion was directed or make such

order as it deems just.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Rule 12(e) is often employed where the

pleadings are insufficient; however it is also appropriate where

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 20 Filed 06/30/05 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

2 Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 8(a). 

While courts have dismissed overly detailed complaints under

Rule 8(a), the court concludes that the appropriate course

is not dismissal but a more definite statement. 

4

“a complaint approaches the other extreme of being overly prolix

or complex.” 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice

¶ 12.36(1) (3d Ed. 2004).2 In such cases, the motion for more

definite statement can assist the court in ‘the cumbersome task

of sifting through myriad claims, many of which may be foreclosed

by various defenses.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Board of

trustees, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996.) While, Rule 12(e)

is disfavored, plaintiff’s complaint is precisely the type of

pleading to which it is properly applied. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the court makes the following

orders: 

(1) Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order, which complies with Rule

8(a). Plaintiff shall omit from the amended complaint irrelevant

details and unnecessary evidentiary allegations. 

(2) Defendants pending motion to dismiss is VACATED as

MOOT. Defendants may renew the motion to dismiss after plaintiff

amends his pleading. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:June 30, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00061-FCD-JFM Document 20 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 4