time to effect service is proper in the present case. See Garrett v, Miller, 2003 WL 1790954
(N.D. Ill. April 1, 2003); Miles v. WITMX Radio Network, 2002 WL 1359398 (N.D. Ill.

June 20, 2002) (both allowing extension of time to effect service in light of plaintiff's pro se
status and timely attempt of service).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff is given
leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 60 days of this Order, provided Plaintiff can do
so consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Furthermore, Plaintiff is given 3Q days from the filing of

Rp
ite
Dated: 1b- 28-04 (4

JOHN W. DARRAH
United States District Judge

the Third Amended Complaint, if filed, to proper!



In light of the mere mass of facts and the failure to properly identify the Defendants in
the Second Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint is indiscernable. The Second
Amended Complaint fails to notify the Defendants of the principal events to allow the
Defendants to answer the Second Amended Complaint. See Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761,
764 (7th Cir. 2003) (allegations should be “short and plain,” and are sufficient if they notify the
defendant of the principal events). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.

Defendants also move to dismiss the case in light of Plaintiff's lack of proper service.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of the complaint and summons
is to be made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. In this case, Plaintiff filed his
first Complaint on June 3, 2002. Summons did not issue on the Complaint until
February 10, 2003; and Plaintiff has not filed any proof of service.

If the 120-day time period is not met, the court “shall dismiss the action without
prejudice . . . or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the
plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Furthermore, if the plaintiff cannot show good cause
for the defect in service, the court still has discretion to direct that service be effected within a
specified time. See Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus., Inc., 94 F.3d 338, 340-41 (7th Cir.
1996).

Plaintiff argues that he has attempted to timely serve Defendants and that he relied upon
appointed counsel’s statements that the Defendants had been properly served. While Plaintiff's

claimed reasons for not effecting service are questionable, the Court finds that an extension of



‘ Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge John W. Darrah than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3957 DATE October 28, 2004
CASE Jackson v. Ashcroft, et al.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
1OTION: of the motion being presented.]
'OCKET ENTRY:
1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
2) o Brief in support of motion due
3) 0 Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
8) Qo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
9) a} This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OGeneralRule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
102) Wl [Other docket entry] Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings is granted in part. Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff is given leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within 60 days of this
Order, provided Plaintiff can do so consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Furthermore, Plaintiff is given 30
days from the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, if filed, to properly serve Defendants. Enter
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
a1) ff [For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.]
~ | No notices required, advised in open court.
T No notices requited. suber ofnees
Notices mailed by judge's staff. r
~~] Notified counsel by telephone.
a Docketing to mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form. ;
— Mage
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. an
WO vy
courtroom Ss ty
deputy’s a fi
initials s
cts: , Date/lime received in
ced central Glérkis Office mailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

TALMITCH JACKSON, GLI 2 9 2004

Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General;
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION;

STEVEN L. POMERANTZ;

DILBERT N. DILLBECK; DAVID CRANE;
WILLIAM E. COLOMBELL;

JOSEPH CALVIN JACKSON;

ALAN J. MEDINA; and JAMES H. MANN,

No: 02 C 3957

Judge John W. Darrah

eS SS SS SS Se Swe eee

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In June 2002, Plaintiff filed his first Complaint. In response to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss, Plaintiff sought, and received, leave to file an Amended Complaint in July 2003. In
November 2003, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In January 2004, Plaintiff was
given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. In June 2004, Plaintiff filed his Second
Amended Complaint. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on
multiple grounds.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10.

Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 10 requires that the



title of the complaint include the names of all of the parties and that “{e]ach claim founded upon
a separate transaction or occurrence . . . shall be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(b), (c). Failure to comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure may result in dismissal of the complaint. A complaint that is unintelligible because of
lack of clarity may be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). See Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d
1107, 1110 (7" Cir. 2003); United States v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378-79 (7"
Cir. 2003) (Lockheed-Martin) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice following
plaintiffs filing two amended complaints and a more definite statement which failed to make
complaint discernable). “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward .. . .
Length may make a complaint unintelligible, by scattering and concealing in a morass of
irrelevancies, the few allegations that matter.” Lockheed-Martin, 328 F.3d at 378.

Plaintiff's 90-page Second Amended Complaint consists of 304 numbered paragraphs,
many of which contain sub and sub-sub paragraphs. In addition, Plaintiff attaches and
incorporates into the Second Amended Complaint over 700 pages of exhibits. In the caption of
the Notice of Filing for the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identifies nine defendants by
name and includes “et. al.” The caption of the Second Amended Complaint includes the names
of the defendants listed in the Notice of Filing and a new defendant, James H. Mann. In the
“Parties” section of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identifies ten defendants. None of
the aforementioned include Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Haile as a defendant.
However, Count IV-B of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, in its title and body, alleges
that Haile violated Plaintiff's privacy in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552. Furthermore, numerous
paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint allege conduct by “defendant” and/or
“defendants” without any indication which defendant or defendants engaged in such conduct.

2