Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00502/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00502-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETSY P. ELGAR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HENRY C. WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-00502 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

DEFERRING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION

Plaintiff filed this action on January 24, 2007. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege that

defendant committed multiple unspecified wrongs against plaintiff. Plaintiff also filed an application

to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s complaint runs afoul of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a), which

requires that a complaint contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s

jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Rule 8(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure further requires that “each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and

direct.” The purpose of these requirements is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The

requirements of Rule 8 ensure that a defendant will be able to respond to the allegations against him or

her. See Edwards v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp., 291 F. Supp. 199, 211 (C.D. Cal. 1968) (stating that “Rule

8(a)(2) envisions the presentation of factual allegations of sufficient clarity and certainty to enable

defendants to determine the basis of plaintiff’s claim and to formulate a responsive pleading”).

Case 3:07-cv-00502-SI Document 5 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

As written, the Court cannot decipher the matter at the heart of plaintiff’s complaint, nor can it

determine whether there is any basis for federal jurisdiction. The complaint does not present factual

allegations in a sufficiently clear and certain way so as to enable the defendant to determine the basis

of plaintiff’s claim and formulate a response. Among plaintiff’s seeming allegations are: defendant has

wrongfully stated that plaintiff works for defendant, Compl. at 1; defendant has been talking to

plaintiff’s supervisors, id.; defendant is somehow involved in torturing plaintiff, id. at 2; defendant

arranged for plaintiff to stay in the house of a third party who subsequently stole plaintiff’s possessions,

id.; plaintiff is being followed by a “hitman,” id. at 3; intellectual property has been wrongfully taken

from plaintiff, and defendant knows about the intellectual property, id. at 5; plaintiff suffers the illeffects of the practice of witchcraft or voodoo upon her by others, id. at 6; plaintiff was the victim of an

attempted poisoning by a third party, id; defendant knows that plaintiff has information worth billions

of dollars, id. at 7; defendant has plaintiff’s CD disc, id.; and plaintiff, who entered a contract with

defendant, opposes lawsuit either filed by or filed against the Department of Defense, id.

For the reasons outlined above, plaintiff’s complaint as currently written is too vague, unclear

and indirect to give defendant fair notice of the claims against him, or to give this Court any way to

determine whether it has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, plaintiff must clearly allege what the basis of federal

jurisdiction is and exactly what she claims defendant did to deprive her of her legal rights. 

Any amended complaint must be filed on or before February 16, 2007. If plaintiff fails to file

an amended complaint by that date, the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. Consideration of

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be deferred until an amended complaint is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00502-SI Document 5 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 2