Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00188/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00188-0/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

08cv188

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN COBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. REYES, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08cv188-JAH (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. Nos.54, 56, 59, 72]

On December 18, 2008, this Court issued an order dismissing pro se plaintiff John

Cobb’s complaint for failure to comply with F.R.C.P. 8. Doc. 35. This Court issued

another order on September 23, 2009 dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint

because it also failed to comply with Rule 8. Doc. 50. In that order this Court

authorized plaintiff to file a second amended complaint but warned that if the complaint

did not comply with Rule 8 it would be dismissed without further leave to amend. Id. 

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on October 21, 2009. Three

motions to dismiss were filed by various defendants on November 9, 2009, November 10,

2009, and November 23, 2009 on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint still failed to

comply with Rule 8, as well as other theories. 

 Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint “shall 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

Case 3:08-cv-00188-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/22/10 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 08cv188

relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

Similarly, Rule 8(d) requires that “each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and

direct.” Rule 8 is designed to provide defendants with fair notice of the claims against

them and the grounds on which those claims rest. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798

(9th Cir. 1991); see McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). 

 “[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal 129 S. Ct 1937, 1949 (2009).

While Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed facutal allegations,’ . . . it [does] demand [] more

than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (citing Bell

Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). “The propriety of dismissal for

failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without

merit . . . Rule 8(e), requiring each averment of a pleading to be ‘simple, concise, and

direct,’ applies to good claims as well as bad, and is a basis for dismissal independent of

Rule 12(b)(6).” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint contained 333 pages. Plaintiff’s first amended

complaint incorporated by reference his original 333 page complaint and contained an

additional seventy eight pages of facts and allegations, in addition to several exhibits. The

instant complaint is 117 pages. While the Court recognizes that plaintiff’s SAC is shorter

than his first two complaints, this Court is still unable to determine the exact nature of

plaintiff’s allegations or which allegations are claimed against each defendant. Although

the Court must construe pro se pleadings liberally and afford plaintiff the benefit of any

doubt, even pro se litigants must allege, with at least some degree of particularity, overt acts

taken by each defendant which support his claims. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972)(per curiam). 

Plaintiff initially states this action arises out of “an episode of premeditated police,

prosecutorial, and public defender misconduct, which resulted in charges brought and

maintained against, and a one year of constructive custody enforced against, and several

days of slavery imposed upon, an innocent man.” Doc. 51 at ¶1. Plaintiff later states

Case 3:08-cv-00188-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/22/10 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

3 08cv188

“Defendants worked together to fabricate false and corrupt evidence and cover up

exculpatory evidence to arrest and later convict Plaintiff . . . .” Id. at ¶4. Throughout his

complaint, plaintiff makes general allegations similar to those referenced above, but fails

to provide any supporting facts. 

The SAC details a history of equal protection violations dating back to 1981

whereby plaintiff claims he has been subjected to “unlawful selective enforcement of the

laws” due to his national origin and sexual orientation. Plaintiff also contends there is an

“infrastructure formula, and template (“IFT”), which police and prosecuting agencies use

to cover up unlawful acts.” Id. at ¶53 According to plaintiff, this formula is responsible

for defendants filing complaints against and/or arresting plaintiff for incidents between

1992 - 2006. Plaintiff spends thirty six pages describing factual scenarios that

demonstrate how the U.C.S.D. police department, San Diego public defender, San Diego

City Attorney, and certain state court judges have all conspired to harass plaintiff.

However, those scenarios are merely background and do not relate to the conduct

complained of here. It is not until page forty seven that plaintiff begins describing the

factual allegations pertinent to the instant case. Those allegations are organized in such

a haphazard and convoluted fashion that this Court is unable to ascertain the exact

conduct that forms the basis of the underlying litigation. On page seventy four plaintiff

begins reciting twenty five causes of action but does not state which facts in the previous

seventy three pages are pertinent to each cause of action. 

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “confusing complaints. . .impose unfair

burdens on litigants and judges.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.

1996). For the third time, this Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and struggled to

ascertain the facts and claims asserted. Such review imposes an unfair burden on this

Court and defendants. This Court finds that plaintiff’s SAC does not contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing [plaintiff] is entitled to relief” nor does it state

each allegation in a “simple, concise, and direct” format. As a result plaintiff’s SAC does

not comply with Rule 8. 

Case 3:08-cv-00188-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/22/10 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

4 08cv188

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motions to

dismiss are GRANTED. Pursuant to this Court’s previous order, plaintiff shall not be

granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s SAC is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE and plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated : September 21, 2010 ___________________________ John A. Houston

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00188-JAH-WMC Document 74 Filed 09/22/10 Page 4 of 4