1 This Court’s October 25, 2004, Memorandum and Order

(Doc. No. 51) dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No.

2) for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a)(2)’s “short and plain statement” requirement. However, that

Memorandum instructed that if Plaintiff filed a second amended

complaint that conformed to Rule 8(a)(2) on or before November

26, 2004, then the Court would reopen this matter sua sponte. 

While Plaintiff timely filed a second amended complaint, it fails

to conform with Rule 8(a)(2). 

In order to conform to Rule 8(a)(2), Plaintiff must

plainly and shortly state the grounds upon which relief should be

granted for each claim brought against each defendant.

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). The

purpose for this rule is that defendants must be given fair

notice of the claim and the grounds for the claim brought against

them. Id. 

It is important to note that Rule 8(a)(2) applies to

the individual claims, not the pleading on the whole. It is

axiomatic that the more claims alleged, the longer a complaint

will be. Of course, a complaint is sometimes unavoidably long,

but the length must not dilute the clarity. Rule 8(a)(2)

achieves this balance by requiring both a short and a plain

statement of each claim and the grounds upon which relief should

be granted. 

The claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Second Amended

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GORDON ROY PARKER, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

LEARN THE SKILLS CORP., et al., :

Defendants. : No. 03-6936

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of December 2004, in consideration of

Plaintiff Gordon Roy Parker’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. No. 52), and that Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint fails to conform to this Court’s Memorandum and Order1

Case 2:03-cv-06936-JK Document 53 Filed 12/03/04 Page 1 of 2
Complaint are neither short nor plain. At first glance,

Plaintiff has improved upon the eighty page First Amended

Complaint (Doc. No. 2). In Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,

he was able to omit twenty-eight pages and over ninety-eight

anonymous defendants. Plaintiff was also able to label

individual claims for relief against just two defendants. 

Beyond the first glance, however, it is the lack of any

cogent or plain statement that dooms Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint. For each of the individual Counts, Plaintiff states

conclusory legal elements or cross-references a laundry list of

allegedly offensive comments without tying the two together in a

decipherable way. Only super-human patience would allow

defendants to discern the relevance of each alleged fact to their

potential defense. Despite the complexity of Plaintiff’s claims,

Plaintiff must give the defendants in this matter notice and the

ability to properly respond to the claims brought against them. 

Plaintiff has failed to conform his amended pleading to the

demands of Rule 8(a)(2) as instructed by this Court’s October 25,

2004, Memorandum and Order. 

2

(Doc. No. 51) instructing Plaintiff to adhere to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)’s “short and plain statement”

requirement, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. No. 52) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ James McGirr Kelly, J. 

JAMES McGIRR KELLY, J.

Case 2:03-cv-06936-JK Document 53 Filed 12/03/04 Page 2 of 2