Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07821/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Parvaneh Borhani
Plaintiff
U.S. Government
Defendant

Document Text:

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

PARVANEH BORHANI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. GOVERNMENT AND GOVS OF OTHER

COUNTRIES,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-07821 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

DEFERRING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION

Plaintiff filed this action on December 20, 2006, seeking recovery from the United States

government and governments of other countries. She also petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of cash, shelter, food, and a plane ticket. The complaint does not state

a basis for recovery or why plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff alleges that she “has gotten no pay

for previous work,” is “currently sleeping outdoors,” and is the victim of an “unfair marriage

dissolution.” Compl. She does not provide a causal connection between these results and any action

taken by defendants, nor does she allege that the United States government and governments of other

countries have violated the law in any way.

The Court must also advise plaintiff that her complaint is unacceptable as currently written. As

it stands, the complaint consists of several largely incoherent, bullet-pointed statements. Plaintiff’s

difficult to follow complaint runs afoul of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Similarly, Rule

Case 3:06-cv-07821-SI Document 4 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

8(e), 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, 78 S. Ct. 99, 103 (1957). In practical terms,

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

or her. Edwards v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp., 291 F. Supp. 199, 211 (C.D. Cal. 1968) (“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.”)

Plaintiff’s complaint, as it is currently written, is too incoherent to give defendants fair notice

of the claims against them. Accordingly, if plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must

clarify her allegations to ensure that they comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The amended

complaint should clearly state how defendants have deprived plaintiff of her legal rights.

Should she wish to do so, Plaintiff must file her amended complaint on or before February 15,

2007. If plaintiff fails to file her 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

plaintiff files her amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07821-SI Document 4 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2