Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01557/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01557-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS LOMAX,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-01557 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Thomas Lomax filed a complaint on April 15, 2005. Plaintiff has sued a number offederaland

state agencies and government officials. The United States defendants have filed a motion for a more definite

statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), which is currently scheduled for oral argument

onDecember 2, 2005. [Docket No. 17]. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines the motion

without oralargument, and hereby GRANTS the motion and GRANTS plaintiffleave to amend the complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, “[i]f a pleading to which a responsive pleading is

permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannotreasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading,

the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(e). Defendants contend that plaintiff’s complaint is rambling and that one cannot discern the nature of his

claims, against whom he is making his claims, the relief sought by his claims, or the grounds upon which the

Court has jurisdiction over his claims. 

After reviewing the complaint and attached materials, the Court concludes that the complaint as

currently framed is too vague and ambiguous to require defendants to file a responsive pleading. See Bautista

v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000). Although the complaint is alleged against the
United States District Court

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

1

 Plaintiff’s October 18, 2005 response incorrectly asserts that it is the government’s responsibility to

identify the jurisdictional basis for plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff is mistaken, and if he chooses to amend his

complaint, the complaint must identify the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction.

2

United States Department of Justice, a number of other federal and state agencies as well as government

officials are mentioned in the complaint or its attachments, or in other filings in this case. Thus, it is unclear

which agencies and individuals plaintiff is actually suing. In addition, the complaint does notsetforth the basis

forthe Court’s jurisdiction,1the causes of action plaintiff is alleging, the factualbasis for plaintiff’s claims, or the

relief that plaintiff seeks. Although plaintiff provided some ofthis information(such as the reliefhe seeks) in his

October 18, 2005 response, these allegations and demands are not contained in the complaint. 

Plaintiffshall be givenleave to file anamended complaint which cures the deficiencies discussed above.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, such amended complaint shall (1) identify which agencies and

individual are being sued; (2) contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds upon which the Court’s

jurisdictiondepends; (3) contain a “short and plain statement” ofthe legaland factualbasis for plaintiff’s claims;

and (4) demand the reliefthat plaintiff seeks. See generally Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a). Plaintiff is cautioned that

any amended complaint which does not cure the deficiencies contained in the first complaint is subject to

dismissalwithout leave to amend. If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he must do so on or before

December 23, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge