2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-1-2009 

# D an a M o s s v

. U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4739

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D a n a M os s v

. U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1413. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1413CL D- 1 5 4 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4739

___________ D A N A LY N N M O SS,

A ppel l ant v . UN I TED STATES OF A M ERI CA ; STATE OF N EW J ERSEY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 4178) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l 9, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay1, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM D an a M o ss, pro ce ed ing p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s i ng hercompl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce f orfai l ur e t o compl yw i t h R ul e 8( a) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. B eca us e the appe al does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al2

ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4; 3d C i r . I O P 10. 6.

I In A u g u s t 2 0 0 8 , M o s s f ile d in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a s ix -p a g e h a n d w ri tte n c o m p la in t. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned, s ua s pont e, t hatt he compl ai ntfai l s t o m eett he “s hor tand pl ai n s t at ement ” r equi r ementof Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) beca us e i ti s “l ar gel yi l l egi bl e, i ncompre hens i bl e, and conf us i ng. ” O n Sept ember30, 2008, t he C our tdi s m i s s ed the c o m p la in t w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e to M o s s ’s f

ilin g a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t w ith in th ir ty d a y s . S ee S im m o n s v . A b ruz zo , 4 9 F . 3 d 8 3 , 8 6 -87 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). I n O ct ober2008, M os s fi l ed a “ M ot i on forE m er gentR el i ef, and I nj unct i ve R e lief.” T h e th re e -p a g e h a n d w ritten m o tio n , tho u g h m o re leg ib le th a n M o ss ’s c o m p lain t, does notactual l yas s er ta cogni zabl e cl ai m forr el i ef. A s M os s fi l ed no others ubm i s s i ons dur i ng t he thi r t y - dayper i od, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcons t rued herm ot i on as an amended co m p lai n t and d ism issed itw ith p rejud ice f o r fa il ing to co m p lyw ith R u le 8(a )’s “sh o rt and pl ai n s t at ement ” r equi r ement . M os s fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. See I n r e: W esti n g h o u se S ec . L it ig., 9 0 F . 3 d 6 9 6 , 7 0 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). II W hen a di s t r i ctcour ti s pr es ent ed w i t h a conf us i ng and/ ori l l egi bl e compl ai nt , t he cour tm aynotdi s m i s s t he compl ai ntpur s uantt o R ul e 8( a) w i t houtfi r s tgi vi ng t he l i t i gant a n o p p o rt u n ity to a m e n d th e d e f e c tiv e p le a d in g . S e e S im m o n s , 4 9 F .3 d a t 8 6 -8 7 .3

C o g n iza n t o f

th is d u ty , the D istric t C o u rt a p p ro p ria telya f f o rd e d M o ss a n o p p o rtu n ityto conform hercompl ai ntt o t he r equi r ement s of R ul e 8( a) . She fai l ed t o do s o and off er s no rea so n to q u esti o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s reso luti o n o f th e m att er. O n appea l , M os s has fi l ed tw o r es pons es t o t he C our t ’ s l et t eri nfor m i ng hert hat herappea l w as s ubm i t t ed forpos s i bl e s um m aryact i on. I n herm or e than 800 page s of fi l i ngs , how ever , M os s has pr ovi ded no bas i s forconcl udi ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed in a n yw a y . A t m o st, h e r re sp o n se s c a n b e u n d e rsto o d a s a c h a llen g e to w h a t ap p e a rs to be a de ci s i on of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew H ampshi r e i n an u n re late d c a se . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.